dennyc

Prompted by this, I gave in and read the P&B thread, or at least the last few pages. All I would add is ....... Listen to Vietnam91. If he is who I think he is, then he is in a better position than many to evaluate the entire situation.

As long as he is not just another looking to feather his nest. Hopefully with him on board we can take flight next season.

My take on things is that McMahon....and perhaps others on the Exec Board.....have always regarded the WS as a hinderance rather than an asset. Good for PR but little else. The Society's only value being the cash it generates. And until recent Society Board changes that cash was readily accessible more or less for whatever purpose the Exec Board judged appropriate and on terms far different from those established when the Society was created. Had the original concept been followed there would currently be in excess of £2m in the Society coffers. Others can confirm the exact amount. Those changes to the Society Board have brought about a desire to return the Society to it's original way of operating and at the same time reduced McMahon's control over Society decisions. A desire that was having a positive outcome with funds starting to accumulate and under greater control. For that reason I feel the new WS Board have earned our patience. But their role is to grow the Society, not run the Club on a day to day basis. Their are professionals to do that. With that source of readily available funds under question moving forward, and if we can agree that it would benefit the Club to secure additional finance to assist on and off the field, McMahon and the Board now have to seek alternative solutions. Hence the Taylor Swift video. Please remember that this a gentleman who has been in control of the Club for a number of years and has failed to secure any meaningful investment in that time, relying almost entirely upon the WS. Under pressure, McMahon has now decided to head off and is desperate for that to happen quickly. Barmack has provided him with his get out of jail card and McMahon is doing whatever is required to push a deal through, possibly at the expense of the WS which in my personal opinion would please him greatly. I find it revealing that, if the comments on P&B are to be believed, the information provided to Barmack has painted a wholly incorrect picture. Both with regard to the WS stance and the valuation of the Club. Who to believe? It also rankles that the WS are to write off all monies due to them from MFC. Again totally against what was promised way back in the day. I think that stipulation is huge and a step to far. So either the Club's finances are not as we think (and before anyone jumps in, I do not think the position is critical or we are in danger) or McMahon and the Board have run out of ideas and, coupled with the relationship with the Society changing, they mostly want a way out. Like several have in recent times. A point to remember, even if the Barmack proposal falls and he walks away, we have not lost any existing income streams. Perhaps that fact has been lost sight of in all the upheaval? Anyway, that's my take on things. I am not 'on the inside' and I want to make that clear. Just as I see it.

Is he a winger 😀

Not true. But thanks for confirming your approach regards folk with even a slightly different view than yourself. You have brought more to this debate than anyone and are being proven correct on almost everything you have highlighted from day one. So thanks for that. But responses like that detract from the valid points you make. Did you even need to respond if you thought the question so basic?

Sorry but that response is out of order. The poster asked a genuine question, and qualified it, only to be treated like shite. Do you really think other fans are not asking or thinking the same thing? Not everyone is into this whole affair as strongly and aware as you are. Everybody on here is looking for the best way forward and with the Society's and Clubs best interest at heart. Are you big enough to apologise?

And certainly, as owners, direct the Club Board rather than be dictated to by that Board. Perhaps some good can come out of this whole affair at the end of the day.

Yikes! I find myself agreeing (again) with Steelboy. I also think that because they want what is best for the Club and the Society they are trying to find solutions that are drawing them into areas beyond their remit. It is one thing managing the development and growth of the Society, but coming up with an investment plan for a football club is something else. Are we expecting too much of them? As majority share holders and owners, I wonder if they should just have sought Members views and, if the consensus was 'NO', advised the Board that the proposal had been rejected, providing the reasoning behind that decision. And then instructed the Club Board to seek an alternative. But, through good intentions, the monkey has now landed on the Society's back. Wellgirl, hope your day got better and you got your work completed on time.

And the revised Society Board determined that the they should return to operating in the manner that was originally set. Before, firstly, Les H and then Jim McM decided the Society was really just a cash source to be raided whenever and for whatever purpose the Club Board dictated. That's our subscriptions we are talking about. Aided by a faction within the Society Board. And the Barrack proposal is just an extension of that sidelining of the Society.

An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset. The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need. To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club. And to safeguard the future of the Society. I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to.

Fair point. I guess what we don't know is what attempts the existing MFC Board made in recent times to secure fresh investment. Be it through that emotional attachment you mention or through local Business people who are able and willing to support the community. Looking from afar, it just looks like the Board were happy to rely on the Society for support until such time as McMahon and others decided it was time to get out. Hence the video and what has unfolded since.

As Hearts have done through the hard work of Budge and her Board colleagues, working with the Hearts Foundation and not against. Might be easier for Hearts given their supporter base and greater attraction, but they have shown what is possible.

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.