dennyc

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.

That's a fair point. From Les's comments we can work out an estimate we can work out monthly income. Now if only we could estimate monthly outgoings we would be in a position to calculate monthly growth. From what we know there is one salary (for the admin assistant). I think Les was meeting half of that cost but is that to continue after he rides off into the sunset? There might also be ongoing costs for promotion materials, admin expenses, professional fees and I recall mention of Insurance. From there all we then need is the starting balance to work out the present situation. Now, that sum might be fairly substantial (again hopefully) but we simply don't know. But let's assume a build up of £8500 per month (and rising hopefully) or around £100k per year. Is that enough to cover, say, the payment of players' for a couple of months if short term problems crop up? It's not that long ago that MFC were forced to sell off Jamie Murphy on the cheap to meet that month's wages. The Board's words, not mine. The answer is fairly simple though. if the Board supply the information their would be no need for any speculation whatsoever. Look, as you were at the meeting. you'll know that I asked for financial information to be made public in the hope that positive news might encourage folk to join/return to the Society. Is that unreasonable? Am I pissed off that promises made at the meeting have not been kept? Yes, and I don't think that is unreasonable either. But this thread is supposed to be about Les. So can you tell me why you think he has chosen now to move on, bearing in mind his comments that MFC is almost at the stage of breaking even and that the structural and personnel changes made have had a positive effect on finances? The only concern seems to be the slow take up of Society membership, which can reasonably be expected to grow over time and as MFC is seen to be on an even keel. Why not see out the five years, as promised, and influence matters from the inside? My own view, and it is speculation, is that the Society situation coupled with the fact he has had to provide MFC additional funds on a regular basis has really got to him. Perhaps he sees walking away as a blunt, and probably final attempt, to force fans and local businesses to join up. Perhaps Derek Weir's departure also played a part.

At the same meeting it was agreed that the up to date balance and growth would be published monthly. Where are they? Also the figure quoted as the monthly increase was argued back and forward within the panel. By no means convincing and that is why I asked for the correct figures to be published. Les's figures are a .....very recent.....step forward

Agreed, in an ideal world that's the way it would work. Unfortunately the situation for several years has not been ideal and the Society has been funding the Club, almost from day one, to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds. How much has been repaid and is the current balance held by the Society anywhere near the figure of £1m which Jim McMahon (in his professional opinion) stated was the minimum sum required to make the whole set up feasible? He also confirmed that the vision of short term support had proven optimistic and those temporary loans were now regarded as medium term loans. If the Club is almost at the stage of operating at a profit (see comments on BBC website) that will help and support might not be required right away. However there are periods in the year when income can dry up for any number of reasons. Who do the Club turn to if, as some suspect, the Society coffers are almost empty? Yes, the same boring old question! But not one person from the Society Board will volunteer what the present balance is and at what rate the monies are growing each month. That is worrying.

My mistaken use of words as covered in earlier reply to which I would ask you to have a look at if you will. Running/owning aside, with a 76% stake I don't really think the Society through their Board will be far removed from every day involvement. The points about the timing and day to day financing still apply, People being on both Boards might just be another indicator

Thanks guys. Thought I must have been going mad in my old age, Unless I'm mistaken (again)it was about 20 minutes in,nil nil and Cummins was having one of his better games. Given our approach to games at Ibrox way back then, you're right, it probably did not alter the end result.

Good point. But I can remember getting all fired up about McCulloch basically assaulting one of our youngsters in a game at ibrox, and that turning the whole game around.

Stand corrected. So what game am I thinking off where McCulloch used his elbow on one of our guys? Can definitely remember that happening but must have got the games confused.

Hopefully one of the "upgrades" that Les introduced was monthly Management Accounting in an effort produce accurate figures on a more regular basis. Waiting until year end figures are produced to effect any required changes to Budget/Control only adds to risk. Better to act as early as possible. Fingers crossed, when the 2015 and eventually 2016 year end Accounts are published, the Club's Accountant can provide a more up to date indication of how things are going.

My humble apologies. The Society do not run the Club. My mistake. As major Shareholders they appoint a Board to do so and then The Society fund any shortfall which arises. Same concerns though re timescale and challenges. Is that correct? And yes, there are millions of shareholders in lots of Companies worldwide. But how many own 76% of the Company, don't receive any dividend and are expected to set up a monthly standing order to enable the company to function? Anyone owning 76% of a Company's shares has a massive say in how that company operates whether directly or indirectly.

Scottish League Cup at Ibrox. McCulloch blatantly elbows Hutchison ( I think) in the face. Game changer as Motherwell looking fairly comfortable until Hutchinson forced to go off. Motherwell get trounced. Assault clear as a bell on TV coverage. No media/pundit witch hunt.

What has changed is that The Society do not have 5 years to get their act itogether before being presented with a football club to run. If the Club is now breaking even ( do you really think that is the case?) or they manage to sell on players all well and good. But if neither of these two things happen very soon, how does MFC/The Society fund the shortfall on a monthly basis until Budgets/Costs can be reduced sufficiently? What funds are currently held? No-one is telling us that basic fact. Les has said he will continue to fund the club for a couple of months, which suggests we are currently running in deficit. Hopefully the situation is more stable than many suspect. But previous advice (J McMahon at Society meeting end 2015) that a progression to profitability could not happen overnight and that a minimum reserve of £1m would be required by the Society certainly adds to the uncertainty. I agree the proposed end result and the manner in which MFC must operate remains the same, but the abrupt change of timescale brings fresh concerns. Some real, meaningful clarity is urgently required.

At the Society/Manager meeting, when pushed, Jim McMahon commented that in his professional opinion the Society would need around £1m of working capital to be viable. That was after taking control of the Club, having REPAID Les H and John B. It was envisaged that it would take 5 years to get to that stage. On that basis we need a total approaching £3m (LH £1.5M, JB £0.35M, Capital £1m) to pay the debts and then run the Club. And that is only if the Club is not making any further losses, which seems unlikely as LH is quoted as saying he will provide additional support over the next couple of months. I just don't see how that is possible without some outlandish sum coming in very soon from player transfers. Even if LH and JB are wiling to wait years for repayment, where is the basic £1m which is required coming from? Despite several promises, we have not even been told what funds the Society currently hold. I agree, some clarity as to how this whole thing is going to be funded is urgently required. Would be fantastic if LH just wrote of the monies owed to him, but I very much doubt that is going to happen.

Re writing off his debt, I don't think so. The statement mentions short term funding over the next few months and deferred Loan Repayments. The early years of fan ownership will be critical so let's hope Les is willing to spread those repayments over a substantial number of years to minimise the financial pressure on the club. Also "other Board Members continuing" suggests his daughter is continuing in her role which might encourage Les to be patient regarding those payments. All a bit sudden, which suggests to me that Les tired of his football project. He was so adamant about what had to be achieved before any transfer of ownership but all that now seems to have gone by the wayside. Coupled with Derek Weir's departure, I just don't know if this latest turn of events will prove good or bad news.

Just surprised Chic Young has not been on moaning about the state of the Fir Park pitch against Thistle. Wonder what the crowd figure really was as it looked massive by todays attendances.

I don't think it's about how the police do or don't deal with trouble. I think it's more about forcing the clubs to take responsibility for identifying trouble makers within their own fan base, banning them and passing details to the police when requested. Celtic taking action against those involved in the Stranraer shenanigans is a prime example of how the game has changed. They certainly would have been less willing to act several years ago. Anne Begg's recent statements on behalf of Hearts is another sign that Clubs will act to protect their position. It'll be interesting to see if Dundee United are able/willing to identify those involved in destroying seats at the weekend. I agree it's harder to deal with several thousand fans belting out sectarian bile, and I don't see shit loads of police or stewards wading in any time soon. I do think Clubs, including Celtic and Rangers, will be punished though when it continues and they will be asked to identify those involved. Sadly, fining the Clubs will do little to stop those determined to carry on singing their little ditties. Whatever, it does feel like the football authorities are taking a much harder stance and clubs like Motherwell could well bear the brunt of that approach.

Two things strike about this whole fan behaviour thing. 1. The publication of the findings of the enquiry into the aftermath of the play off game has had little positive effect on the behaviour of fans of certain clubs, Motherwell included. Dundee Utd, Hearts and Celtic have had cause in recent weeks to publically condemn the behaviour of an element of their support and in some cases action has been taken against those that have been identified. I sense that the footballing authorities have had more than enough and the message to the Clubs is..... "If you do not identify and deal severely with wrongdoers, then you, The Club, will be hammered. No excuses, you are responsible." 2. Motherwell need to be seen to be heeding the warning given in the Report and to be taking action. However they are reluctant to actually ban any of the people who ran onto the pitch (viewing it more as a celebration rather than hooliganism), despite this being a requirement of the same Report. Perhaps they are using the ploy of being unable to identify those involved.....that excuse has certainly been successfully employed at Celtic Park on more than one occasion. However, and perhaps in line with my first paragraph, they are giving notice that they will have no choice in future and people will be identified and action taken. Time for fans to take notice or suffer the consequences. A word on the Bois. The support they provided at Hamilton was fantastic and you could see the players greatly appreciated their backing and the atmosphere generated. However, (just before kick off) there was an issue with smoke pellets. Admittedly only the once, but yet again a total disregard for the pleas of the Club. Fortunately, and despite much taunting, the Police and Stewards did not overreact and the situation did not escalate. I fear that common sense is not going to prevail and, remembering that MFC is effectively on probation, sooner rather than later the footballing authorities are going to take a much firmer line. Perhaps a sizeable fine which the Club can ill afford.

I think that when our full backs turn in a decent performance we see McManus at his best. Sadly, Saturday excepted, he has spent most of the season trying to cover the gaping hole at left back, whereas the other Centre Back often has had to cover right back at times. It is no coincidence that Hammell turning in his best performance of the season resulted in McManus also having one of his better games. I would definitely offer him another contract. McManus and Hall have done well together so why change a winning formula? Lasley continues to contribute, although McGhee needs to accept that asking him to play Saturday, Wednesday, Saturday is asking an awful lot. If playing time is managed properly Lasley is worth another season. Cadden's inclusion has helped but alas Gomis does not appear to be able to provide the support Lasley requires, particularly towards the end of games. Shopping list - at least one full back (even if Watt does eventually get given a chance), a central midfielder (please not Gomis) and probably a striker as Fletcher has not impressed although playing time has been limited.

Les (also John Boyle) holds Security over Fir park and all assets of Motherwell FC. So if the worst was to happen, he would be repaid in preference to other Creditors such as the Well Society. I hope he would not insist on the sale of Fir Park if all other means of repayment failed, but he does have the power....and the right....to do so. Hopefully he would find a buyer for his shares thus avoiding the need to sell off the family silver. At the Society meeting I pushed for the Society to be given the same Security protection as LH and JB, bearing in mind that the Society comes only behind LH in the amount of funding provided to MFC. At least the Society would then have some chance of getting it's money back in the (hopefully unlikely) event of Administration or a sell off to a third party. Money which could then be used to support any future ownership/reincarnation of MFC. Reaction to my suggestion was positive on the night, but to date no effective action has been taken. Apparently we are waiting until "the time is right". Apologies to all that are aware of the situation from other threads, but since there has been no progress whatsoever since the Society meeting I feel the points are still very relevant and worth airing. And yes G&F. You were correct after all. I am pissed off with broken promises. Fair play to you.