wellfan

The ref is going to be our downfall today. Couldn't have asked for a better first-half performance against this mob, though.

This is what I am hoping for. I don't want to lose the Society.

I think it's a go-for-broke type game, where we should focus on our attacking game by starting Bair and Vale to keep the ball up the park because we will likely badly lose if we try to concentrate on our poor defending game.

I'm not usually one to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat, but I'm a little worried for two main reasons. The longer the lack of a permanent CEO, failure to communicate appropriately, departing Chairman, and begging for investment fiasco go on at the MFC Board level, the more I question its motives, governance, decision-making, etc. I'm sure McMahon and Weir won't do anything to harm the Club deliberately to suit their interests, but mistakes and rushed deals can happen when individuals are compromised/scunnered/leaving/etc. The more information we find out about the Well Society's numbers etc, the more I question its ability to undertake its function appropriately. There are many unknowns and concerns about it, which is not what we need when deciding its future role in the Club. However, that may change with the new WS board members, but it could be too late. Can anyone alleviate my concerns with a better perspective, or do we need a complete reset with/without the Well Society? We know the MFC Board is being reset. For transparency, I voted against the WS losing its majority shareholding because I believe we need fan ownership as a controlling interest at the table. I am not against bringing others to that table, however, but would they want to invest for a minority stake and voice? Probably not. So, for me, it's either the WS or not now, but it doesn't look like the WS is a financially capable or well-structured enough entity at this stage to take the lead. As I said above, though, others may be able to ease those concerns with further commentary on the reality of the overall scenario.

McGinley has signed for Ayr United.

Yep. That's why a breakdown in membership figures and voting data would be helpful. Somebody who better understands these things might be able to look at the result alongside the membership demographic and make better sense of it all. I certainly can't.

Linking to what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, I think it would be important to understand what percentage of the 3800 members are eligible/able to vote before the true turnout figure is understood/calculated following any future binding vote.

Consider this. I joined the RSPB a few years back when I was particularly enthused by ornithology. I’m not that bothered about it at the moment due to life being busy, which means I generally glass over the member emails and campaigns, but I am still a member and still pay my monthly direct debit. I occasionally go to their nature reserves at the weekend, but, if they put out a member poll asking to vote on the ownership of a nature reserve, I'd probably ignore or miss it. Returning to the WS, many of the 1600 non-paying monthly members likely became members by paying a lump sum at the beginning of the WS many years ago. Many of those members may now be, for example, deceased, emigrated, or disinterested. The latter is the most likely. A key aim of the WS Board should be figuring out a strategy to better enagage those in the 1600 category. It should focus on getting those (still alive) to activate a monthly direct debit. Something like that could increase our monthly paying adult member base to c.3000. Put simply, stating the membership is at 3800 doesn't tell the full story when 1600 are non-paying and 700 are kids.

As I said in my earlier post, there are 1600 members who don't financially contribute anymore. It seems reasonable to suggest that some of those members may not be as engaged with the WS, or bothered, as those on the forums and social media are. That's why I've referred to that category of members as ‘silent’.

Some probably don't, but this indicative vote may well awaken others and increase the turnout in the event of any binding vote.

I agree that the turnout is poor. I offered some context regarding the reality of the membership demographic to demonstrate one potential reason for the low turnout, of which there will be many.

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option. Crude assessment: I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result.

As a Motherwell fan from Lanarkshire, Rangers and Celtic are irrelevant to me. I don't go to games against them or care about their results in the Premiership and Europe. We, and the other nine teams in the league, are unlikely ever to finish above either of them again, and that's just that. I consider us part of a league of ten teams, with no chance of anything other than two cups, third place and European qualification, which is fine for me. I find it helpful to remove them and their fans from my thoughts.

We'll have to endure one more season of Killie's plastic carpet, as they plan to have it replaced with grass by the start of the 2025/26 season, and Livi will take their shite to the Championship for the 2024/25 season, where it should remain forever more.

Let's start with this, where I'm a 'dumbfuck' for having a view. Trace many posts back; you'll see that this individual has chosen to get personal more than once.

Yep. Add the plastic pitches.

Elaborate.

I may have dismissed Bair, which I think was fair at the time because his record before signing for us was mince. However, he’s turned it around and I've since acknowledged that and praised him. His effort was never in question. On Vale, I was actually more positive, and he's lived up to my expectations and more. For example:

Cheers. Lunchtime over.

I completely understand that, and that's why most of us are here, to engage in good faith. But, I refuse to accept the forum as being a place for targeted personal abuse when someone disagrees with your view, hence why I continually respond to that individual to try to be constructive. Some people here can't enter a debate without signing off with snide personal comments.

We're agreeing to agree here, although the post you've picked up on was my response to an individual who continually targets my views with personal abuse, thus diluting any valid alternate view they may have.

I see you're a fan of clementines.

Your argument against change is centred on defeatism, bordering on denialism. Furthermore, given the season isn't over yet, I’d also add that it's a bit of a logical fallacy, but the latter could also be applied to my view posted a while ago about not wanting him to see out the season. It's pointless discussing this. TL;DR - if you want to stick with shite because you're afraid that change might bring more shite, then that's fine. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or share those views.

Thanks to Pie & Bovril, I think my suggestion of 40+ points being the magic number is a reasonable assumption. P&B: “How many points needed for a top six place this term? Here’s the 6th placed team and their points total at the split going back the previous 9 seasons. 22-23 St.Mirren 44pts 21-22 Motherwell 40pts 20-21 St.Johnstone 40pts 19-20 n/a 18-19 Hearts 50pts 17-18 Hearts 46pts 16-17 Partick Thistle 41pts 15-16 Ross County 43pts 14-15 Dundee 44pts” https://x.com/pieandbov/status/1763127542486126811?s=46&t=wehikD-exiutCByWu64YEQ

I've resigned myself to accepting that Spittal will move elsewhere, and fair play to him, he's earned his move and payday.