dennyc

SOD set up at least four fairly straight forward chances but others made a hash of finishing. I thought both he and Wilson did what was asked of them but lapses elsewhere stopped us strolling to a far more comfortable scoreline. Similar to Montrose. Miller clearly a class above, especially when the movement of others stretched opponents creating space. His penalty was class. I also thought Paton looked much more effective running from deep. Please SK, no more having him as the main support for a loan striker. For the second game running Halliday showed he may have a big part to play. Surprised Balmer did not feature. Not convinced yet with the back three we saw as a unit yesterday. Hopefully we can identify the best partnerships as no doubt they all have something about them.

Subscription totals will be highlighted in the Annual Accounts enabling comparisons to be made. Might be a year or so before that is meaningful though. To keep the positivity going right now there is no reason why in a month or so figures cannot be made available detailing how many new members have signed up following the Wild Sheep rejection. Also the number of non contributing members that have restarted monthly payments or set them up for the first time.

And who exactly is saying we don't need outside investment? But not at any cost and with little thought of implications. The Society Board have set out a draft plan that seeks to bring in both internal and external investment, initially locally and then from further afield. But it will not, and should not, happen overnight and with a disregard of consequences. Otherwise we might as well have just adopted the Wild Sheep/McMahon masterplan. And that Society plan must work hand hand with a revitalised, forward thinking Executive Board utilising their experience and contacts to secure additional income/investment streams. With the Club, at the same time, examining all aspects of the Organisation to address any inefficiencies they identify. I genuinely believe that for progress to be made relationships have to be repaired and trust restored. Board adjustments in both areas may assist, but that will take time and protocol has to be followed. But I do agree the change we all wish to see needs to start immediately, and be seen to start immediately. The Society Board have already reached out to the Club CEO and Board and it will be revealing to see what response they receive. But it is not just up to the Society Board to continue the progress we have seen of late. Every single fan needs to get on board and support their efforts in any way they can.

This is exactly how I saw things. Playing Paton as the main support for a lone striker is insane. In fairness to the lad he ran himself into the ground trying to play a role he is just not suited to. I lost count of the number of times the ball fell to him in the box only for the move to end right there, or for him to be 'inches away' from getting a decisive touch. He does not have the natural instincts of a goalscorer or set up man. But 100% for effort. Regards Halliday. I don't think he did much wrong and he was certainly not our poorest player on the night. Noticeably we lost control of midfield when he went off. I would rather he had stayed on a bit longer with Stuparavic being introduced earlier for a shattered Paton. Ferry is just not ready and why he was brought on baffles me. That said Robinson and Moses both missed great chances to kill the game off. I think Kettlewell believed the game was won at one nil as Montrose had shown no sign of being able to test our defence. So rather than wait until the tie was sealed he decided to experiment. Why else start switching the defence around and change the shape of the midfield. Tinkering that went wrong, unsettled our defence and gave Montrose hope. Truth be told they should have....and maybe did.... score before they did. The referee, Colin Stephen?, was a joke. Sadly that is the standard we will have to suffer throughout the season. A game thrown away. And not just by the players. Steelboy has compared our approach to that of Clarke's Scotland set up. I can see what he is referring to. In so many ways. And I don't see it changing any time soon. Not a good ending to a day which started out so well with the Wild Sheep and Bair news.

I thought he showed signs of that in his limited time yesterday. Looked to me like he was planning his next pass well before he received the ball. One move almost linked up all three strikers for a goal but the goalie saved at Ebiye's feet to stop a tap in. I would like to see Stuparevic given a try out in that set up role on Tuesday. He certainly needs a fair bit of game time before the league kicks off.

She also said that referees at the Euros had been 'recommended' to avoid going against what VAR suggested. So what was the point of the referee looking at the wee screen? Go against that direction and there goes your chance of the final. The England penalty being a clear example where only VAR and Ian Wright thought the referee had made a clear and obvious error. Even the VAR lady was stunned.

With Ya Bezzer on the back of course.

This whole situation goes from bad to worse. So we learn our Chairman (and others) strongly endorsed a Business Plan he had not read or tested, presented by a gentleman with no experience in football. At the same time the owners of the Club were excluded from any meaningful discussions. Rather than undertake his legal responsibilities the Chairman turned the spotlight and pressure on the Well Society possibly in the hope they would come up short and the deal would be waved through. And now we are in a state of concern awaiting the outcome of a vote that should not have been forced upon us. Just let that sink in for a minute. Jim McMahon is the man we trust to safeguard our football club. Hardly points to him adhering to his duty to act in the best interests of MFC and the Shareholders. Following diligence shown by the Society Board (including the production of a document detailing a practical and realistic way forward) coupled with numerous valid questions being asked by a concerned fan base, we are now told that no plan was presented to the Exec Board. I assume the other Club Board Members just accepted assurances given by Messrs McMahon, Dickie and Feeley? Not one of the projections or assumptions had been investigated it seems prior to recommendation. By anyone! So no inaccuracies, financial miscalculations or vague promises are anything to do with the Executive Board. Really? Those other Exec Board members, who must now be embarrassed by the truth of the whole situation, should intervene to bring this farce to an end. Then both Boards can work in harmony to identify a way ahead that is in the interest of all parties and secures the future of our Club. And given the fact that only now has the full background become known....days after the vote opened.....how valid is that vote? Would some folk have voted differently had the full background been known to them? Some Legacy this Mr McMahon.

Really provides a safety net if the turnout is less than last time (Unlikely as you say). But will make more of a statement if the threshold is exceeded and the majority who vote reject the offer. That leaves less scope for the Club Board to gripe about the outcome if/when they lose.

I E-Mailed the Society to confirm things and was advised that if the turnout threshold of 35% was not reached, then there will be no change. No change means the proposal from Barmack is rejected.

Can I add that if we reject the Wild Sheep offer, we are in no worse a position than we were before Mr and Mrs Barmack appeared on the scene. We must not lose sight of that fact. Arguably we are positively in a much better position. Not only have we not lost any regular income streams, the financial situation has instead been much improved as a direct result of new TV and Commercial deals negotiated by the League Authorities. Income which our Club Board have shrouded in mystery. Topped up by around £250k due to Kelly and Bair bench warming for their International teams. AND, if strong rumours are to be believed Theo Bair will be off in a couple of weeks bringing in a further £1m or so. AND we still have Lennon Miller. Add to that a much stronger and refocused Well Society off the field and a refreshed team on it following early transfer dealings. In short, this is not a panic situation. We have time to restructure and secure outside investment on terms which will not bring about the likely demise of the Well Society. The Society vision is a good starting point but it is not a competition between the Society vision and the Wild Sheep proposal. Despite what some would have us believe. We are voting solely on the proposal by Mr Barmack in the knowledge that other options are and will be available.

My understanding of the answers to a few of those questions. Anyone know any different please correct. I am not close to anyone on either the old or new Society Board so my comments are based on responses to E-Mails and from having joined the Society at the outset and attended several presentations. Apologies if the response is lengthy but the questions are worthy of a detailed reply. 1. Around £2m total provided to date of which £850k was by way of Loan. Originally all funding was to be Loan only (secured by a Standard Security over Fir Park) but that model was changed at the request of the Club Board supported by certain Members of the then Society Board. I believe around £1.2m of that £2m was passed across never to be returned. Les Hutchison was integral to the 'donation' as opposed to the 'loaning' of monies. Part of his Agreement which drained Society monies. Jim McMahon chose to continue a similar funding model, again supported by some Society Board Members. Barmack wishes to do the same. No doubt someone can confirm the average annual income of the Society. Multiply that by the number of years the Society has existed and you will see why I am talking in millions rather than thousands. Another simple measure is to confirm how much in totql the Society has collected over the years and compare that to the total of current Bank Balance and outstanding Loan. Less expenses, they should match but I guarantee there is a sizeable shortfall. Donations made over the years. The reasoning for Loans only and a Charge over Fir Park was that if the Club were to collapse, all monies due to the Society were protected and would receive repayment priority upon a Club Administration or Liquidation. Those repaid loans providing a basis for the formation of a new Club. Starting over if you like. Worst case scenario but a valid consideration. There was no real intention for the Loans to be repaid, so as not to affect Club cash flow. Plus the Security over Fir Park offered other protections of the major Club asset. 2/5. Funds were originally to be moved across to cover short term funding gaps covering a range of expenditure relating to core Club activities and Community engagement. Society funds were not to be regarded as a piggy bank to be raided on a regular basis. In that way Society funds would gradually build up to a sizeable reserve. Millions was the hope.. In more recent times the Club forwarded a funding request to the Society and the Society Board would assess and decide whether to provide the funds. But not always on a Loan basis for some reason. When I asked for what purposes those funds were provided I was told "Projects". Pretty vague to be honest. Members were not asked for their agreement to the change in the manner funds were provided. When changes to the Society Board took place last year, driven by the new Appointees, it was decided that the Society should return as close as possible to the original funding concept. To build up Society assets. Also far more scrutiny was made of funding requests from the Club, and not all were passed as a matter of course. That does not appear to have been received well at Exec Board level and two Society Board members who seemed more aligned to the Exec Board have stood down, those Members having supported the Wild Sheep proposal against the majority view of the Society Board. My personal view based on responses I have had over the years is that a complacent Exec Board, under it's two most recent Chairmen, sidelined the Society and treated Society monies as the Club's own. To be utilised for whatever purpose and whenever they decided. Supported by some but not all Society Board members. Basically, It was easier to turn to the Society for finance as opposed to seeking solutions elsewhere or addressing inefficiencies within the Club. The new Society Board have addressed that situation, seeking to be respected as majority share holders and exercising more control over the monies provided by Society members. The Barmack proposal will utilise all Society funds over time and eventually lead to the Loan being repaid/written off. Almost certainly leaving the Society with no assets. Oh and with a much reduced shareholding and with little power in the Exec Boardroom. With no Loan in existence, the Security over Fir Park could be cancelled leaving Fir Park free to be used by a Barmack led Board as Security for outside Loans to fund his various projects. There is a recognised funding shortfall in his latest plan. Why is that? As I said, my take on things. Folk closer to the situation please confirm or disprove my understanding.

Out of curiosity how many Ordinary Shares to Messrs Dickie and McMahon currently hold? Enough to make a difference if transferred? I understand Companies have to provide an up to date list of Shareholders to Companies House every three years or so as a minimum. Last return I found listed for Motherwell FC was dated 2015. They also provided details in earlier years but I could find nothing after 2015? Maybe Shareholder details are reported differently nowadays? In the 2015 return William Dickie (Father of Douglas?) was recorded as holding 10,000 Ord Shares so possibly they will still held by his family/son. If so, I think they represent around 3% of the total Shares currently on issue. So significant I suggest. And they could carry the option to purchase additional shares under the Barmack proposal. Les H was also on the list at that time but no doubt he will not be listed on any up to date Register. Also listed in 2015 are a Douglas Dickie and a James McMahon but with only 12 and 10 shares respectively. Up to date details might be revealing. From the names listed, I think there are a good few who contribute here and on P&B. Anybody who wants a read type " Motherwell Football Register of Shareholders" in Google and click on the top item. Some other documents in there and on associated pages were a tad more interesting than the Euros. The early game anyway. Page 3 for the last shareholder return I could see.

Well done to all involved in the creation of a structured, comprehensive and credible plan outlining the vast potential of our Club and Community. This document needs to land on the doorstep of every Business and dwelling in Lanarkshire (impractical I know but we all need to spread the word in any way we can) As a byproduct it certainly points to how complacent the current Executive Board have become over the years. And great to see Grimmy has not lost touch.

I believe the Boards should work in Partnership, with the Exec Board responsible for the day to day running of the Club. They are the Professionals and, in some cases, employed for that purpose. CEO as a prime example. Sadly there has been little evidence of any Partnership in recent times. So yes, but only to a degree, the 'hands off' arrangement you outline. But far from passive which I acknowledge is your concern. The Society should and must be involved in strategic planning, driving aspects of it and so recognising their status as majority shareholders. But the existence of the Society should not absolve the Exec Board from strategic responsibility. Or preclude them from having input as their experience and knowledge could be of great value. Working together I would hope they could come up with a far better long term proposal than we have before us at present. And one less frantically cobbled together. As I say, a Partnership which appreciates and respects both elements, and welcomes input from both. The exact opposite of the relationship which has evolved under the current Club chairman.

So three wins and two draws as a minimum then.

And no midweek trip to Dingwall or Aberdeen over the festive period! Clearly there will have to be an investigation leading to a re draw. Maybe VAR will intervene..

I would like to see any agreement, whether with Barmack or someone else, state that Fir Park may not in any circumstances be used to secure external funding and that only the WS may provide funds based on a pledge involving our Stadium. If that is legally possible would need to be checked out as it might not be, or may be worked around. The best safeguard may be to ensure that a sizeable Loan remains in place under current terms as registered at Companies House. We do not need it repaid. Folk can maybe see why I am so suspicious of the requirement to reduce the outstanding Loan. What next? An offer by the new Barmack controlled Board to repay any outstanding balance, perhaps to enable the WS to meet it's agreement to match his financial input. In effect, we hand the money straight back leaving the coffers empty and with no monies owed to the Society. Hopefully the independent legal advice the Society is seeking will clarify the implications of having no monies owed to the Society by MFC. Edited to add. There is a world of difference between ' no ground can be sold' and using that ground to secure a Loan. I agree with 'weeyin'. These folk are clever and any words they use are carefully chosen.

If the Loan is repaid in full, or entirely written off, would the WS retain the power their Charge held over Fir Park provides? The record at Companies House states the Charge is in place due to monies owed to the Society by MFC. If no loan exists.....? The Charge was put in place following suggestions from the fan base in an attempt to protect Fir Park. in 2016 from memory, registered by A Burrows. My understanding is that, as first charge holders, the WS has to agree to any outside funding being secured by a further mortgage over Fir Park. If our Charge is discharged does that free up a Board under Barmack's control to secure funding using Fir Park as Security? That position needs investigated, but has hardly been mentioned.

The cynic in me thinks that in trying to achieve that goal it is also the intent to access whatever monies the Society has amassed from fans. Raid the piggy bank one last time. Reasoning 1. Insist the Society agrees to just about match the Wild Sheep funding over a number of years. An annual commitment well in excess of current annual subscriptions. End result? A reducing bank balance and eventually insufficient funds to meet commitment and/or effect a buy out.. What then? 2. Insist the Society agrees to write of a huge amount of monies owed to it by MFC. On the face of it an act of good faith by WS to improve the MFC Balance Sheet. In reality, a stripping of Society assets. Funds gone forever. It is really so obvious.

You may have a point regards how some people regard the Society and fan ownership. But that is hardly the issue here. To focus on the Society at this time deflects greatly from the real issue. In fact that deflection is exactly what the sponsor of this proposal has orchestrated. The only issue that needs focusing on immediately is that the Exec Board (fronted by a Chairman desperate to retire) has put forward a proposal lacking content which will immediately yield control of the Club to a minority Shareholder. Although in time that minority will almost certainly become a majority and lead to the demise of the Well Society. As for the three members of the Society Board who supported the proposal, I think it is telling that not one has gone on record, despite numerous requests, to outline why they came to that decision. Exactly what benefits they thought Mr Barmack would bring to the Club, and by association the fan base/Society. Why is that? If they have valid reasons, help me to understand. I am big enough to accept I may be missing something . In contrast to the other six Board Members, who released a statement explaining exactly why they voted against the plan and detailed the threat they believed it presented. Historically, the Society began well and grew at a reasonable rate, in line with the hopes of those that fought to bring it into being, and for the purpose it was created. Not perfect by all means but then what new Organisation is? Sadly over time, through several Club Board changes and aided by influences within the Society Board itself, the Society became more and more sidelined and it's manner of operation changed dramatically and secretly. And not to the benefit of Society or fans. Recent changes to that Society Board brought about a re-examination of the purpose and operation of the Society. That brought about increased resistance from the Club Board. A tightening and closer scrutiny of funds being passed to the Club plus a desire to be respected as the major shareholder being prime causes of that friction. Ironically, the exact factors many detractors of the Society, including myself, wanted addressed! And then, out of the blue, we are faced with this urgent need for outside finance, despite assurances only a couple of months ago from our Chairman that all was fine financially....no need for panic. And suddenly it is the responsibility of the long ignored Well Society to come up with an alternative should the Barmack proposal be rejected. A proposal they were shockingly not afforded the opportunity to be part of negotiating. Despite their status. Of course the Society needs to look at itself and seek improvement in several areas. Communication, Record keeping,Online presence being three that spring to mind. But progress has been made and without the influence of certain individuals I believe that improvement will continue and gather pace. But the issue before us right now is the Barmack proposal. That proposal is what we must not be distracted from looking at in detail. Despite Mr McMahon's best attempts

I find it really frustrating that some people don't see, or refuse to see, the obvious differences between the roles of the two Boards. The WS Board were established to grow Society Membership thus amassing funds for the use of the Club when required, to protect those funds, to work with the Club and also independently to promote Community involvement and awareness. As majority Shareholders they should also oversee the work of the Exec Board, working harmoniously in Partnership. The Exec Board exist to oversee ALL operations of the Football Club. Just as in every other Football Club. They have responsibility for all aspects of the day to day running of the Organisation, the financial wellbeing of the Club, safeguarding the future of the Club and working with various Authorities to ensure that all requirements are met. That is why the Club Board employ a CEO (of whom I have high hopes) and qualified Accountants in addition to a Football Manager and a coaching team. Working In Partnership with the Society Board who should be viewed as an asset and not a hindrance. Distinct responsibilities. Different roles. a partnership. Essential to enable both bodies to function effectively. And yet so many have been taken in by a strategy asserting that it is up to the Society Board, at the drop of a hat, to come up with a Business Plan detailing external investment plans for a Football Club currently under the Leadership of Jim McMahon and his Board. To essentially carry out perhaps the important role of that Club Board.....maintaining financial stability. And remember, our Chairman has placed no such pressure on Mr Barmack to present such a detailed or ambitious plan. Perhaps no surprise given that it is under his stewardship that we have seen such turmoil on and off the pitch for a good number of years. He has successfully created an atmosphere of fear and urgency, all to enable him to ride off into the sunset. And aided by one or two who have mysteriously appeared out of the blue on here and on P&B pushing the same corrosive agenda. As a direct result of that strategy, expectations of the WS Board have gone through the roof. Any Business Plan they are asked to produce should be focused on how they plan to grow the Society, leaving the Club Board to carry out the duties which they were elected to perform. If some of the Club Board are unable or unwilling to carry out those duties they should move on. I do believe securing fresh investment would be of great benefit to Motherwell Football Club. Of course it would. But I also believe that a forward thinking, dynamic Club Board under new leadership can secure such investment and address inefficiencies within the Club. Without bringing about the demise of the Well Society and all it stands for.

Same here. Another wee point the Chairman might like to clarify perhaps? Unless he is still in the huff. I'm pretty sure it is something the new regime, whoever that might be, will investigate in due course. In a drive to maximise income from all areas.

I also took it the Club benefited from all merchandise sales. But I read on P&B that Provan Sports are the real beneficiaries with MFC only earn anything if sales reach a certain level, a level which is pretty high and seldom reached. First I have heard of that arrangement but disappointing if true. I assume the Board worked out that it was cost effective to outsource rather than run our own operation. Or was it just the easy option? Might explain why we see a new shirt or three each season. Wonder how long that has been the case and how long is left on the contract? Oops. David beat me to it😀

Perhaps the Club and the Society forming a joint project team to look at future strip design could help build a better relationship between the two. Having discussed possibilities with manufacturers, present the final three options and let the folk who will be paying for the new shirt have the final say. Club, WS and fanbase uniting! Now, there's a novelty.