weeyin

Likewise. He was up here last year when he was on crutches, working out at the Fir Park facilities, so it's not unusual for him to be training with the team. Be surprised to see him play a competitive match, but if he's willing to sign a pay-per-play deal it would certainly get a few more bums on seats.

The guy at the back post defintely looks like a tint-job.

Seriously. Do you think a business can provide for itself without customers? Self-sufficient means being able to live within our means and not rely on debt to finance our activities. Now that a slice of our income has been removed, and we have no bank debt facilities, there is a risk (and only a risk) that a combination of negative factors could put us into administration. It's pretty standard in business to identify and manage operational risks. It doesn't mean they will transpire, but you need to account for them.

I don't think you understand what 'self-sufficient' means. (Clue: it doesn't mean we can survive with zero income).

Because if we finished at the bottom end of the table we'd end up with an even bigger operating loss. This past financial year was problematic for a few reasons, including not selling our mandated player. That put a large dent in the budget which we could likely have managed better if it wasn't for the Rangers debacle. Now, if we were to be awarded 2nd place money due to the newco situation, we might have a bit more flexibilty, but no point in spending ourselves into a black hole this season.

He says he wants to finish his career at Fir Park - that is a few years away yet.

The article doesn't say he has heart troubles, it says his blood sugar was low (which would certainly explain passing out). Sounds like the cardiologist was just a precaution.

I'm not swayed by anything - quite the opposite. I just want to see the information presented. And, more importantly, see if we are being presented with a simple yes/no option.

I don't believe they should be a special case either, but they are the first case in the SPL to be starting a newco and seeing as the founders weren't smart enough to legislate for such an eventuality, we are in this mess.

Aye, what we are actually voting on. Nobody has said it's a straightforward yes/no option. If we vote No, does SPL 2 come into play? Does newco go to SFL 3? Will legal challenges screw up the SPL next season? Would that screw up Scottish entries in UEFA competitions? How many staff at Fir Park do we get rid of if our budget gets cut? Does No mean we lose our chance to change SPL voting procedures? And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there is plenty of horsetrading going on behind the scenes right now. I'd also like to see the cold hard figures (or best estimate of them), because I like to make informed decisions. If it does turn out to be a simple yes/no option, then fair enough, but I'll wait until I see what's on the table before committing. Remember, this is the future of our club and Scottish football we are influencing here - I think it's prudent to be fully informed.

I have to say I'm a little concerned with the number of "I'm voting No, now what's the question" responses on here. As 'Well Society members, we at least owe it to our club to let them lay out the details and explain the nature of the vote before we decide. With all the discussions going on, it might not be a simple Yes/No decision.

Unfortunately, regardless of where the line is drawn, there will always be regular attenders who feel left out. I can see the logic in this one, however, as the point of the Society is to let members have a more direct say in the direction the club is taking. If that is extended to season ticket holders or a supporters clubs or whatever, then it renders the Society membership valueless.

If voting No meant SPL 1 reverted to 10 teams, who would still be in favour? I doubt there is much too it, but I have seen a few rumours.

It wasn't me, but there is plenty to be unsure about seeing as we don't even know if it's a straight Yes/No vote or there are other issues to be taken into consideration at the same time.

Good move by the board 2 NO votes from this house

Voting "No" meaning liquidation would obviously be the worst case, but what about something the middle? "Cutting our cloth to suit" is a phrase bandied about quite regularly, but in reality that can mean things like making staff redundant. If the financials for "No" meant that we had to lay off half a dozen loyal Fir Park employees and close down 2 of the community projects, it might not be as clear cut. So, like I said earlier, let's see the details first.

If there is, maybe it should be after we receive all the details from the club.

Thompson, in The Herald I think, gave a long list of reasons for voting no, and then in the last sentence hinted that financials might sway him to vote yes.

Couldn't ask for anything more and looking forward to finally reading some details of the financial implications.

I'm a big fan of more equal revenue sharing and find it slightly ironic that the country where this type of 'socialist' activity it is practised the most is here in the capitalist US. Whether it's salary caps and equal distribution of income like the NFL or luxury taxes and big teams giving to smaller teams like the MLB, it tends to lead to a more even playing field. Of course, the reason this is done is because the owners are smart enough to realise that, in the long term, keeping teams closer to parity makes for a more competitive league which in turn draws in more fans and generates more revenue. One day, the short sighted suits in the SPL might finally get it.

In which case, there will be no problem getting the OF to agree to it.

Agree with this. Everybody, including the board, need all the facts so an informed decision can be made. Right now, facts are thin on the ground, but hopefully will be clearer by the 4th of July. I think the board was correct to start laying out the potential implications of a 'No' vote. It's easy for us to sit here and say 'just need to cut our cloth to suit' etc. etc., but these are the people who would have to do it. Our board refuses to go into debt, but let's not kid ourselves that many of our rivals would do that (in the short term at least). There would potentially be a number of tough financial decisions to be made, and if they get one wrong, it could put the club's future in jeopardy. I'm still leaning towards a 'No' vote, but if someone showed me the figures that meant the SPL would survive without Rangers, but Motherwell FC would fold, then I'd be mad to support it. Hopefully, at the fans' forum, there will be more information available - or at least in the run up to the SPL vote itself. I think there is plenty of horse trading to be done before that though. If, for example, you offered me a scrapping of the current voting system, a 16 team league, a fairer distribution of TV revenue and a 20 point deduction for Rangers for the next 3 years, then I might consider letting them stay. If it's just a 'take it or leave it' then it's still a 'No'.

Considering all the sucking up to the Old Firm that JB did when he was in charge, I doubt he has changed his mind now.

I think what the club is hinting at is this scenario: If newco is voted out of the SPL and the TV deal is renegotiated downward, we will be in the position of having the same expenses (team wages., backroom staff, ground maintenance etc.), but significantly reduced income. The club is not in a position to get an overdraft, and the Well Society funds are untouchable in this regard, so it could leave them with quite a financial gap to plug. I'm all for stuffing Rangers out of the SPL, but I'd really like to see what the necessary adjustments would be to the budget. If it ends up that we sell Fir Park, ground share with Accies, sack players mid-contract and get rid of McCall, then I might re-consider. Of course, I'm not saying it would be that extreme - that is why we need all the information presented. It's more difficult to make an informed decision without the information.

If the club being investigated has been liquidated, I doubt there is much that can be legally done now.