dennyc

I agree with much of what you say, especially regards the history of the Society dating back to Les and more recently McMahon. With regard to the 'new' Society Board, I do think they have been working extremely hard to effect change bringing about a Society which will be more akin to the Society that was first established. With McMahon no longer influencing Society operations from afar (supported by certain WS Board members) I think that vision has just become a lot more likely to materialise. For that reason I think it is only right to continue our support for their efforts. You mention a Society plan. Can I ask you if you believe that plan should incorporate securing external finance/fund raising for the Football Club? Because to my mind that is the responsibility of the Football Club Board whereas the responsibility of the Society Board is to increase Society Membership and through that growth increase the monies held by the Society, to be loaned to the Club in times of need. A safety net if you like. As a direct result of the domination exerted by Les H and latterly Jim McM it looks to me like the roles of two totally separate Boards with different responsibilities have become blurred. You make a comparison with the Hearts situation and I do agree that there are areas of best practice we could adopt. But please bear in mind the numbers the Hearts Society can turn to and also the fact that they have worked closely and openly with the Hearts Board in the best interests of all parties. I genuinely believe that relationship has not been replicated at Fir Park for a good number of years. A factor brought to light following Society Board changes last year. With regard to external funding, Budge and Co have repeatedly secured additional funding over and above what their Hearts Foundation has provided. I think as recently as last week two new initiatives were announced? Other than this Barmack proposal, what external finance have McMahon and his colleagues secured in recent times? His sole approach seems to have been to to raid Society funds. With no real intention of ever repaying those monies. In short, the current Club Board have fallen short. Barmack's proposal seems to carry on that assault on the Society. Not only are the Society expected to write of a huge sum due to them from MFC (having previously 'donated' a considerable sum outwith the terms of the original Society) , they are to commit to almost matching annually the finance provided via Barmack. Effectively emptying Society coffers. Whilst at the same time falling below 51% ownership. The sop being that the Society can buy out Barmack in two or six years if matters are not going as promised. He even includes a premium to be charged if I read correctly. And where exactly is the finance required for that repurchase going to come from? I do think that external finance is required. So let the MFC Board go out and secure it without sacrificing the Well Society and all it represents. Meantime, with internal barriers removed, let the Society move forward under new Leadership to fulfil the purpose for which they were established. Another point to consider. With McMahon no longer a factor and hopefully Barmack rejected, the Club is in no worse situation than it was three months ago. Arguably the situation would actually be improved. No existing finance has been lost. We still have two saleable assets. The transfer of either could provide the breathing space to enable Club and Society to move forward. At the end of the day that's what we all want.

Just appears to me that McMahon (and by association Dickie) are working very hard to sell the belief that it is up to the Society to secure external finance, when in fact that should be their responsibility as Club Board members. As for the WS as owners effecting change to the Club Board, I’m not sure there was a will to do that given the make up of the Society Board over the years. Plus you have to come up with competent alternatives. And your air fare to and fro would be prohibitive. 😀 Recent changes to the Society Board have ruffled a few feathers though…….allegedly. In some ways it is a shame this proposal has come in so soon after the Society Board changes as I was looking forward to seeing how things progressed under their leadership.

I hope so. But is it not up to the Club Board to secure funds from outside sources rather than being the responsibility of the Society Board? The Club Board run the Club and the Society Board amass funds from member contributions. From what I have read of the proposal, McMahon supported by Dickie doesn’t just want to hand over the keys to the castle, he wants to nullify the Society. And in the process acquire the Society’s assets for his preferred new owner and remove any control the Society has over the direction the football club takes. No wonder Dickie’s position on the Society Board is untenable. How long does anybody think the Society will survive under that arrangement? The Society was initially established to provide back up funds for a rainy day. Short term finance, to be repaid when suitable. Over time Les H and McMahon changed that role in that the Society now appears to be seen as a source of income. So much so that under this proposal the Society is forced to hand over a sizeable sum each year and at the same time have no real say in anything. Wow! I for one want to see the Society operate as originally agreed, with the Club Board accepting responsibility for ensuring the Football Club operates at a profit ( or at least breaks even) by operating efficiently and generating income from their own efforts. After all, that is what I understood the role of a Football Club Board was all about. And that is certainly not the role of the Society Board. So for me. Thanks but no thanks.

I also fear that is the case. Do we know what % of shares are currently held by each of Dickie and McMahon? Or what % the WS would actually have if this proposal went through? I can see the WS being sidelined in very quick time. Then again, they have been for years. But the dilemma I have is that I cannot see how the WS alone can generate sufficient funds to sustain us in the top division, dependent upon player sales for survival. That also....in my opinion....is fraught with too much risk. Their proposal needs to come soon and be realistic. Also I have to factor in that I do not trust McMahon and in my view he has undermined the Society since day one and has been party to Society funds being treated as a piggy bank to be raided at will. So I do not believe a word he says.

If a player is out of contract, he can surely sign for another team at any time. But for that player to be allowed to play immediately upon signing, he had to have been out of contract before the previous window closed. Otherwise he must wait until the next window opens before he can play. Out of contract players have been signing for Clubs since season end have they not? Window or no window. But not playing obviously. I guess teams sign them up early to avoid players going elsewhere and players will be happy to sign so as to avoid wage gaps. I suppose that also covers existing squad members whose contracts have expired. Like SOD, McGinn. That’s the way I understand it anyway

Ah, My mistake apologies. Bloody window! As you say, he could have signed for somebody next Friday before the Euros kicked off and guaranteed his new employers a tidy sum. And no doubt himself a wee bonus for going without for that couple of weeks. Let's hope we get out the group and earn Motherwell a bit more. I still think the Fifa scheme of rewarding Clubs for the 24 months leading up to the World Cup is fairer, and does away with the need for these contrived short term contracts.

Or he could have just signed for Rangers (or somebody else last week), received a signing on fee/salary and let his new Club collect the £100k+ Uefa payment. So yes, win win. But he deserves credit for making sure Motherwell do not miss out.

This From Uefa site explains why Kelly did the decent thing and signed on for a month. The note at the end explains the difference between Fifa and Uefa when it comes to club payments for players represented in National squads. Fifa go back two years contract wise but Uefa only 10 days. Quite a difference. Well done him. Clubs Will Also Earn from the National Team Tournament UEFA and FIFA have mechanisms to reward federations and clubs — organizations pay teams for players' participation in their tournaments. This mechanism, called the "club payments program," is not related to ensuring players from injuries (for this, FIFA has a separate structure). The solidarity program, created in cooperation with the European Club Association (ECA), rewards teams for nurturing players. At EURO 2024, teams, including those outside of Europe, will receive €140 million from UEFA, €10 million more than four years ago. UEFA still needs to determine the amount that will be distributed among clubs. Still, the payout scheme remains unchanged from that of EURO 2020. It will work as follows: each club will receive a certain amount from UEFA for each day a player is in the national team; calculations start 10 days before the first national team match in the championship; once the national team is eliminated from the tournament, the calculation of payments stops; after that, all payments for each player are summed up, and UEFA transfers the money. An important point: according to the ECA, payments are due to clubs for which the player was registered 10 days before the start of his team at EURO (relevant release period). For comparison, in FIFA's loyalty program at the 2022 World Cup, all clubs in which he was listed for the last two seasons received payments for one player.

I believe that the team a player played for in the season leading up to a tournament is due payment. And pro rata if a player switched sides mid season. That would make sense and seem fair. Not 100% sure but I think I read that on the Uefa site before the last Euros. Kelly is not unique in being homeless at present. Armstrong just joined that club.

Possibly the most sensible and balanced comments I have read on here for months. With the emphasis on balanced. You are spot on regards SK (and others) being targets for some no matter what they do or do not achieve. They have been since the day they signed on. No rationale just an immediate dislike. All you have to do is look at how posters disappear for days on end when their obsessions contribute to a win. Then miraculously reappear busting a gut to sound off the first time a pass or a substitution does not come off. Every one of our players…past and present…has made errors. Same with our Managers. The difference is most fans…but sadly not all….are able and willing to acknowledge when certain employees contribute in a positive way. Also a factor is the refusal of some to accept that being fan owned, although great for the ego and bragging rights, limits the scope Kettlewell has for bringing in players of a better quality. And before anyone jumps in regarding offers extended to those that underperformed last season, I am also disappointed that the entire defence was invited back. I kind of understand it though. The reason being factors that nobody on this forum knows for sure - The terms offered to those players. Since January which players about to be out of contract elsewhere knocked back our early approaches. And others since season end. In the absence of any transfer income, what Budget SK has been given and whether that Budget could attract players of better quality than we currently have. That said, if Miller and/or Bair are sold, then I hope SK will be given a far greater Budget to secure replacements AND improve quality in other areas. But I am dubious about whether he would be adequately funded given the new CEO’s comments about the need to stop operating at a loss. In the absence of transfers out, I understand why we might be limited to loanee signings, perhaps towards the end of the transfer window. None of that hides the fact that other issues and efficiencies within the Club appear to need addressing. The sooner the Barmack situation is put to bed, one way or the other, the better.

Don't know about numbers each club can have, but I read sometime after Brexit that football Clubs (maybe Rugby as well) could apply to the Government requesting that players who don't meet International appearances criteria be granted leeway. Representation was made that to strictly apply entry requirements in sport would affect ability to compete. So exceptions are now allowed. I think it is almost always an automatic thing. The numbers limitation rule would make good sense.

Thanks David I do get where you are coming from. I agree with some of that but not all. As a Club I have watched us put poorer and poorer quality on the pitch season after season. And yet I still go along each week 😀. For context compare each position over that same time period. You appear to disagree and I respect that. But eventually imo that decline in quality on the pitch will have disastrous results. We have escaped such punishment so far but we are riding our luck. Especially as most of our so called peers (who have experienced similar decline but which in a perverse way has helped us) are now heading in the opposite direction, or are taking steps to do so. Folk may not like their various solutions but at least those Clubs are trying to move forward. And not just Clubs currently in the top league. Unless we do something similar I can see us falling further and further behind. I am not privy to the inner workings of the Club....or Society....but my feeling is that the current structure and funding model is a barrier to improvement. I sense that the Club does not run as efficiently as it once did and I have less faith in our Board than I have had in the past. I think that ties in with the operational/financial clean up you believe is essential? We differ in that I don't think a tidy up is enough.......or is likely. I was being given those same assurances way back when the Society was initially established and also when Hutchison appeared on the scene. I also have been told that there is friction between the Society and certain Club Board members. May be bullshit of course but it is what I was told from someone I pay heed to. ( I sound like Steelboy now) If we wish to stay at the top table I believe substantial change is required across the board. I do hope the Society can continue to play a major role, preferably as the majority shareholder. You often make play of the fact that, as you see it, any major Investor will insist upon overall control and a financial profit on their input. Investment being the word you highlight. No doubt that is often how it works, but there are situations where that is not exactly the case. Again you or others shoot down any examples that are quoted. I'll wait and see what any offer from Barmack entails, and then I'll cast my vote.

Perhaps Growth could be better described as halting a decline rather than trying to achieve levels that put the Club at risk. Growing back to where we ranked only a few years ago perhaps? Direct question David as I am genuinely interested. Overall, do you think the Club has been in decline in recent times.....on and off the pitch? Compared to say 10, 5 and 3 years ago. Motherwell specifically and not Scottish football in general. If you do, how do you see us rectifying matters or should we just continue as is, and accept whatever outcome that delivers? I think we must be proactive. I do believe that is the dilemma the Board have. And although I have doubts about some Board members, I think on the whole they are genuine in trying to find a solution. As we all are I guess.

Purely for football reasons of course. 😀

Good news. SOD and Slattery are two I definitely wanted to stay.

Nobody is saying it does. But it helps them to bounce back if demotion happens. Wonder how we would have done in the situation they found themselves in. Hopefully we will never know. What we need is longer term stability. Having been in the top League for ages will be little comfort if we crash and burn. Other teams are moving forward. Hopefully any investment we secure can help us to extend our superb record, and at the same time enable us to react if the need arises, without losing our status. History is exactly that. Bask in it all you like, but we need to look forward.

With the information made available so far, I actually thought that was the plan. Structural stability supporting a productive youth system. In time that brings an end to operational losses and eventually leads to a stronger club with improved onfieldf rewards. The 'fix' is not going to happen overnight. Only on here have I read anything about Barmack's funding being used to immediately improve the first eleven. As for the Status Quo, I think this is pretty much spot on. The decline in quality over the years is already there for everyone to see. Other clubs have experienced similar issues, but it seems they have options available which we do not. I do believe the refreshed Society Board are trying to effect change and overcome the barriers they face. In reality that might not be enough though, making external support essential. On the correct terms of course.

Lol. Nothing wrong with SK overthinking........as long as everybody on here agrees with him. I'll join Grizzlyg in saying well done for persisting with the Degree despite your Jon Obika like injury record.

The situation with Turnbull was entirely different. He was not retiring through injury and agreement was reached with Celtic that, when fit, the transfer was still a possibility. And he was still under contract in any event. Financially it made sense. £3m of sense. As well as being the right thing to do for a boy who who joined us straight from Nursery and with a playing career ahead of him. None of that applies to Obika. As for acting like a charity, what is the rationale for awarding a coaching role to Obika? Is he qualified? Has he coaching experience? Has he given years of service to Motherwell? Did we need to fill the position given we were fourth top scorers last season? Or is he just a good guy that we decided to help out? There are plenty of other players that left us due to injury and they were not offered coaching jobs? Having said all that, let's hope he turns out to be the next Pep Guardiola.

Are we locking ourselves into contracts with extension options that take no account of fitness/ability to continue playing when the option kicks in? No legal get out clause in other words. When a player is signed it is routine practice for him to undertake a medical. David Turnbull being a classic example. Would it not be prudent to have such a medical requirement linked into any extension option? And if that medical is failed, then the option falls. It is a shame for Obika and I wish him no harm, but we are not a registered charity and need to stop acting like one. He was lucky to be with us as a player given his medical history. And is he a qualified coach in any event?

That's a fair point about the quality that is out there. But, in reality, how many of those players you list could we have afforded? Wonder what their current wages are compared to what is on offer at Fir Park. Killie, Aberdeen, Hearts and even Dundee appear to be operating with a budget we cannot compete with. County have a sugar daddy, although that is coming to an end. The Brentford goalkeeper knocking us back for St Mirren is a classic example as is the rumour that our supposed Raith Rovers target is favouring a move to Dundee Utd. or even staying put. As always it comes down to finance.

If it is the usual format we are away to Montrose and Clyde, 1st seeds are at home to second and fourth seeds if I recall it correctly

Fair do's they won't be a year older compared to season end. I stand corrected. Apologies. They will be a year older than they were when last season started, and so on throughout the season. Not so relevant regards youngsters but a factor to be considered with senior players as games mount up. Especially if we have two good cup runs......I live in hope. I agree with your views re Gent, SOD, Mugabi and Kelly. With only limited viewing admittedly, Wilson is the only youngster that I think is anywhere near first team ready. And he was farmed out on loan last season after the League Cup so not clear what plans they have for him. Happy he has another year.

If every one of the out of contract players had accepted new terms, we could have ended up with exactly the same defence we completed the season with. Possibly except for Gent who many considered the best and most dynamic of the lot. Fortunately a couple have rejected terms as you say so that will not happen, But the concerning message is that the club, with or without SK's approval, were prepared to run 100% with a group of players that regularly underperformed as a unit. No offence, but would you have been comfortable starting the season with, Kelly, SOD, McGinn, Mugabi, Butcher, Casey, Gent (maybe) Blaney as first choices with Wilson, Ross, Oxborough as back ups? Our Board and Manager apparently were. We got away with it this season. Not so sure we would have next season given the senior players would all be a year older. At least now with Kelly and Butcher moving on there is some scope for change. But not as much scope as there should have been. All about opinions though.

Not just the majority. Every one of them. 100%! Either already under contract, offered terms or requested back on loan. Add in retained youngsters (Ross and Wilson) and that would not have left much, if any, room for additions. I don't think that every one of them needed to go, but because of contracts expiring we had the chance to make wholesale changes to a poorly performing area of the team and at the same time ending up with a bloated squad and a massively increased wage bill. Not so sure that will be possible now.