StAndrew7

Yeah, I do too and that's why I've taken a particular interest in things (aside from being a shareholder). We regularly look at ROI, IRR, NPV etc. on spend over a much longer term than you would for a football club in my line of work though (20-40 years, as I work in shipyard design), so I guess this will be over a far smaller window and a bit out of my understanding. I think that's why I want to see/hear more about the ideas behind it; there may well be something unique in the proposals coming from Barmack - there's no reason why it couldn't succeed, even if it's a different approach to the more traditional investment models we've seen in football. I think his track record in developing sports documentaries certainly gives things a different angle; you'd find it difficult to argue that Drive To Survive hasn't increased interest in and the resulting revenues of Formula 1. I'm still skeptical of it all, I agree, but there's a degree of intrigue that I just can't shake from it all. The devil, as ever, will be very much in the detail if/when it's provided to WS members and shareholders. Like I said on another post, though, I would be looking for some safeguards to be put in place on buying back shares/the WS having first refusal, should he want to pull out for whatever reason in a few seasons/years time. There is also another consideration; that Barmack may well want to make a return, but over a fairly longer period of time and make things a real partnership between him and the Well Society/fan base to develop the club and its potential exposure to new markets/revenue streams etc. Again, it's all just speculation until we know details.

Mike Ashley? 👀 I can't think of anyone who has, but equally, I also can't really think of anyone who has invested in a Scottish football club with that aim, or at least to make a profit over and above getting their initial money back. Perhaps the guy at Hibs, if he can add money and develop talent there and sell them on? If EB/whoever wants to make a return on their investment and has a plan that looks plausible to do so, it'll be interesting to read it and udnerstand it. I would caveat that with wanting some sort of buy-back option/first refusal for the WS on any shares which are purchased if it doesn't work out at any point.

I think (somewhat ironically) the message in the investment video is quite a strong one that the Society should be looking to utilise. We are a unique club, with a really good story to tell. And yes, I think there's definitely potential to speak to local businesses to sponsor the club/invest in it and various aspects of its work, or changing how membership works to allow companies to buy into the WS and the become partners at events, or opening up avenues for additional exposure for them to fans. Discounts for fans with local companies who buy in to the club to increase their sales/footfall. International/regional partnerships as well; looking to tie in with other clubs and their models, understanding how they've made such a big success of it (someone shared a link earlier in the year to a particularly impressive model; I think it was a Scandinavian team but I forget which). There's also looking at the membership in detail; a lot of fans will have made one contribution/payment and never changed to a DD. There's definitely quick wins there to be had, but also longer-term ideas to fit in with the vision. Perfect example; I'm not a WS member, as I'm sure plenty of members here aren't either. Why not? Firstly, I couldn't afford it when it was established and when I could, never felt like there was a need to. Secondly, I've got my own private shares, so what's the realistic attraction for me? I think there is now but I'm holding back because I want to see what the vision is for the WS before committing to it. I agree with you that fans/members should know about the plans; I've never said otherwise. That's because we're in the exclusive negotiating period; it'll be covered by NDA/confidentiality agreements. That doesn't necessarily mean a firm offer will be made but it means the Exec Board saw enough in Barmack's offer for it to warrant consideration.

Agreed. Starting him as a defensive full back or deep lying midfielder to ping passes is the only real option. Whatever we do with him, he absolutely needs a player with pace/energy beside him.

I get what you're saying but I think I slightly disagree with your last statement. I do think that the WS can raise funds more effectively than it has in the past and that the new board deserve their chance to prove they can provide a sustainable vision for fan ownership in its current guise. The issue is that it's been talked about for a long time without much of anything coming of it so far. Also, if we sell Miller for the expected value (most would think in the region of what, £3m+ for him if not more?) and also Bair for a decent wedge, I think we'll be able to achieve that increase as well, which will hopefully bring a sustained period of higher prize money to continue to invest in the first team whilst also swelling the reserves/coffers a bit.

Nicholson was quickly identified as the area for St Johnstone to attack; he's not a defender and it didn't surprise me that both goals came directly from that side of the pitch. Granted, the second one is a(nother) defensive howler but the initial move was down that side, too.

I would imagine so, yes; they could well be treated as two different contracts and require a medical at the start of each, though. They'll (probably?) have different structures, given one's a loan and the other is a potential permanent deal.

I'd say that's more like "Uber Doomsday: Return of the Horsemen". But more seriously, I completely agree; I am absolutely against giving away majority control to anyone, despite what guarantees they provide or the levels of investment offered (unless it's truly transformational). But that's kind of my point though; we don't know if that's what is going to be tabled, or perhaps it has been and ongoing discussions mean that it hasn't? The gap can happen to us whoever is in control; granted, I don't think it's particularly likely given how well runTM we are, but shit can, and indeed does happen.

Integrity and transparency. It'll never catch on.

I think if people/fans are going to want to compete for top-6, realistically there needs to be an increase (not necessarily an immediate one) in how much the club can put into the first team. The only way that's going to come is from one of, or a combination of the following: Selling Lennon Miller for £eleventy billion, Asking for the WS/its membership to raise more money to inject into the club periodically, Asking existing private shareholders to invest, Seeking outside investment Otherwise, we'll all need to accept a drop off in our ability to sign players of a calibre that we've become accustomed to and that it will impact on the product on the pitch and, potentially at least, our top-flight status.

Yeah, fair point!

It doesn't get much more official than the club confirming it when he signed: https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/01/19/andy-halliday-arrives-in-ml1/ Opening paragraph; loan, then becomes permanent in the summer.

One word: "meh"

I'm a fan of Blaney; his recent run in the team has shown me that there's definitely potential there. He's also comfortable with the ball at his feet and looks like he can bring it out of defence when required. Seems like a good communicator, too; always hearing him shouting for headers, etc. I can't really remember him being responsible for any clangers, either? Like, on Sunday he was in the correct position when Bevis and Kelly had their collective brain-fart and didn't really appear to provide any "oh shit" moments, which Bevis and McGinn did once or twice.

I agree that any bid which is giving majority ownership for a pittance should rightly be thrown out before it even gets to the WS Members/Shareholders. Although, like others, I would want to understand the structure of any deal that's proposed and thrown out, because I think transparency in situations like this is often the best route to go down; it saves the rumour mill and the (occasionally baseless or ill-informed) accusations from going into overdrive. As for why the WS should be putting forward their own vision, it's because that's all we've been hearing about since January and the much maligned investment video came out (if not before that). The new workstreams, the plans to generate more revenue, increase membership etc. Where is it? I have no problem with the Society continuing with majority ownership and there being no external investment; I'm definitely not in the "investment at all costs" group. Like @steelboy says, the club is financially stable (which, somewhat ironically, is why we're attractive to investors) and the Society has a healthy enough bank balance to plug any shortfalls in the next 12-18 months. The level of funding needs to be maintained at a level to satisfy the Governing Bodies that we won't go out of business; so if we do have the plug the gap by x or y, the funds will need to be raised to replace them the following year to provide the same guarantee. The doomsday scenario is that that any hole needs plugged two years in a row, or a couple of times over a 2-5 year period; building up £500-750k over a year or a couple of years isn't easy through asking for an increase in direct debits alone. Now, because we budget with a degree of common sense, the club (probably) won't have to do that; however, all it takes is a season like this one, but without the last minute goals, or a horrendous injury to Lennon Miller and we're (at least potentially) right in the shitter. The biggest issue for me is that we're all discussing this based on rumoured values and figures from weeks, if not months ago. Given that over six weeks of exclusivity have passed, I would imagine we're a ways beyond the original figures/numbers that were floated about. The key thing, is that none of the investors were going to be offering transformational levels of cash; which is why giving up fan ownership shouldn't be considered in my view. I want the club to remain fan owned; but if it can remain fan owned with a relatively well connected external investor who can support the WS with its growth and expansion targets, ultimately strengthening its position and the value of the club, why shouldn't we consider it? It made sense to delay any announcement relating to or terms of potential deals until after the season was finished; now that we're done, I'd like to see that happen, or at the very least a formal update given as soon as possible.

Aye it was definitely this; McGinn, Blaney and Mugabi warmed up as a three, which makes it all the more bizarre to have Nicholson at RWB, particularly shoe horning him in there with Paton playing at 10 as a non-entity. St Johnstone rightly targeted that side to get their crosses in and to pin us back. They also nullified Gent for the most part.

I wouldn't say that's entirely fair on the WS. The new board was elected in October and have been working on their vision since then; before any sort of investment video was released etc. The potential for investment will no doubt have given them that kick to get things moving more quickly, I agree, but that doesn't mean they weren't already working on revamping the WS from where it was. As @Kmcalpin says, the WS board needs to come up with the goods (sooner rather than later, in my view) given where we are. I'm not a member, so can't comment on if any significant/members only communications that have gone out, but it's been awful quiet considering it's been over 6 months since the elections took place. That doesn't mean there's not a flood of announcements/information to come in the close season, though. There's probably been a fair bit of involvement on the WS end in the negotiations/discussions with EB which could have impacted on progress, given the board are all volunteers with a finite amount of time available. It's been six weeks since the statement from the club on exclusivity being agreed with Barmack and Co. and other than the BBC's interview and Gavin McCafferty's article in the days following, things have (correctly) been kept under wraps. There was the odd social media post of him being at the games and meeting with the WS board representatives, but that's it. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to hear more after Sunday's game; it would make sense to get the season over and start to announce things from there. Also, just a final point; there's no reason that the two visions; EB's and the WS' can't work together, if WS/fans retain majority ownership of the club. EB's ideas for promotion of the club etc. could be a fantastic asset to growing the WS membership, beyond our traditional support/markets.

Only question mark for me is Davor to start in favour of Halliday. They both bring different things but I prefer Davor's energy in the middle; granted, the same starting XI has seen us score 9 goals in the last 2 games, so would be fine with that.

I think the latter is the ideal scenario. If he can add some international goals and he gets some recognition on that stage we should absolutely cash in on him. In an ideal world, we'd extend him before the summer and he does the above as well.

Absolutely this. Someone over on P&B called this "the most interim season ever"; I think that sums things up really well. The fact we've been safe since effectively just before the split, have unearthed a gem in Bair and are looking at a real prospect in Miller, means it's definitely erring more on being a success, despite the turgid mid-season period. There's been a lot of resetting done both on and off the pitch and Kettlewell should take at least some credit for getting rid of players who just weren't good enough; a significant number of them youngsters who our previous manager when he was Head of Youth Development... didn't develop. Granted, he signed Wilkinson and punted him within 6 months, but him not fancying it up here isn't SK's fault. Obika should never have been given another deal based on his injury history, either. We now have a new (and experienced/accomplished) CEO, prospective new investment from someone who at least appears to "get" the club and the fan ownership model and a reinvigorated Well Society. One thing I will say on the WS front; in the next month(s) I'm hoping to see more from there outside social media posts of brainstorming sessions (although as I've said before; I'm not a member so don't receive any e-mails from them, so there may have been other communications sent I'm not aware of). I realise there's been a lot going on with the investment discussions etc. that will no doubt have taken up a bit of time, but there will come a point when I need to start to see something more substantial to believe the reinvigorated messages we've seen thus far to make me commit to taking up membership. Edit: apologies, that strayed quite a bit off topic! 😬

Find me a manager we've had who hasn't said the same in their time with us in the last 10 years. Every single one has discussed that working on a budget here means restrictions on the playing staff and needing players to be adept at two or three positions to plug the inevitable gaps/injuries over a season. It's not new, nor do I think Kettlewell goes on about it any more than those who preceded him. It could be far, far worse... he could be David "we've got nae cash" Martindale.

Financial/budgetary and playing targets are fundamentally not the same thing though. A football club is a business first and foremost and has to be run properly and prudently by its board, otherwise we'd be in the shitter debt wise. We're not, because the club has been run well over the last 10 years. It's been said on the investment options thread we're attractive for investors as a direct result of the profits and sustainability that we've delivered consistently. The seasons we've made those good profits, we've then invested in the squad by signing the likes of Kelly, Slattery etc. There are bonuses tied to player's own and squad performances. The accounts for the last few seasons show higher payouts because of the collective bonuses for the squad finishing top-6, in Europe etc. Good cup runs and better results on the pitch result in higher money for the players. So we do provide incentives for players to do well in the cups and the league. To suggest that a race-to-the-bottom mentality equates to good financial planning and business acumen, when there's performance based incentives in place for the entire squad just doesn't wash. Edit: also, just did a quick check and this is the first season where we've not reached the quarter finals of one of the cups since 2019/2020.

Sorry to be that guy, but from what was said at the AGM we budget for exiting the cups at the earliest stage we can each season. It was essentially explained that anything above that is a bonus to be added to the pot for the following season, or January window that season etc.

I think Wilkinson had a bit more about him than Obika but agreed, his game just wasn't suited to up here. He got into decent positions but was never going to do it often enough as he was half a yard off it a fair bit.

Aye, agreed. Apparently Celtic are struggling to meet their home grown/Scottish quota next season, so I guess he'd make sense to have in their squad.