Kmcalpin

Its a wee bit concerning once again that we started pre season yesterday with so many squad vacancies and our our main striker away on international duty. Only 1 senior goalie, only 1 senior striker and no left back. Of course, its quite possible that we have players on trial or sigend but not yet announced. Concerning, but no reason whatever to panic. SK did say that he wanted to get business done early this year, but thats easier said than done. Still it does hamper our league cup preparation.

We're a bit short of goalies starting off pre season today. Maybe we have a trialist or someone lined up?

Our choice of strikers for the opening fixture(s) could be somewhat limited, as things stand, if the Bair is afforded a wee well deserved break after international duty.

I think what the past few days have highlighted is that there are major issues with the Executive Board (name should be changed to Club Board) and the Society Board. Although we saw positive change last year to the WS Board, more fresh blood is now required due to resignations. The make up of the Executive Board also needs to be examined as a matter of urgency. We need a settled, forward looklng leadership. I believe there have been some interested local parties who approached the club to invest in the recent past. Without knowing the details, perhaps this avenue could be looked at again? The bottom line is that the WS needs to take control of the Executive Board, being the major shareholder. As far as external investment goes, we require it, not to plug financial holes or to try to improve our status in Scottish football but to consolidate our position, both on but also off the field. That investment has to be right for us though. MFC is our club. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing what this week brings both on and especially off the field.

In the past few years, shares have privately changed hands for about £10 each.

As a very rough benchmark, what price did the Society sell shares at to members a few years ago?

From what I can gather, he is primarily a right back, but can play other right side of a back 3 or as a defensive midfielder. He's not spectacular, but solid and reliable. Never an 8 but never a 4. That's how he's been labelled.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in this post, David, I think this statement is somewhat arrogant and patronising. I'm old enough and ugly enough to have been there and done this myself, to my regret. You might disagree with fellow Well fans as I sometimes do, but please don't denigrate them. Some fans may have opposite, but perfectly legitimate and sincerely held, views to you.

Well said ☹️.

You're not the only one San. 🤣

Thanks for this Derek. A welcome update. Irrespective of the details its encouraging that there seems to be a willingness to talk and negotiate about external investment generally. The recent debate has been a bit polarised and your tone may just help to heal some rifts. We don't want a divided support.

We simply don't know, and I'm not sure if we ever will. What we do know is that there's been a total disconnect between the Society Board and the Executive Board thats been embarassing and totally avoidable. Probably faults, to varying degrees, on both sides. I'm not going to judge anyone until we know the facts, and we probably never will. As I wrote above though, the Tom Feeley/Douglas Dickie situation does need clarifying.

Transfer window now open.

I was thinking more in terms of the Society having learnt lessons, but of course you're right. I'm much less hopeful of the Chairman having learnt his lesson about bringing colleagues, the Society, and we the fans on board. The Society must take a more active and direct role in negotiations, although I don't know quite how that will pan out with Tom Feeley and Douglas Dickie still on the EB. With regard to the latter 2 EB directors, their positions must be clarified asap.

I'm virtually certain that Douglas Dickie and Tom Feeley were Society directors before joining the Executive Board. They were not elected to the latter in their own right. They sit/sat on the EB as representatives of the Society.

Now that is good news. I quite appreciate that matters are moving at speed and so we do need regular, if not frequent, updates. I've no idea whatever, what this update will address but I do hope that the Society, as the major shareholder, is onside with it. Have lessons been learned?

Yes, they are in slightly different positions. That said, as with most things in life, there's a middle line to be trod. I certainly don't expect the club or the Society to start chatting away about every detailed aspect of the issue, on social media, but they could answer basic factual questions or correct inaccuracies for example, or provide updates. On a different point made by some others both here and on P & B, many fans, including me, don't understand all the technicalities. That might well, unfortunately, be reflected in the final vote. It would be great if some uninvolved honest broker could give their objective opinion on the offer, as it currently stands. That would cut out the rhetoric and emotion from the discussion and help us to understand the competing arguments. .

A final avian tweet from me. I'm surprised that no-one has yet posted it. Life is a roller coaster for Well fans.

My question to the Society has been answered this morning so the quick reply is much appreciated. However, I was told that the Society as an entity can't speak on behalf of individual board members and any personal views they may have, outwith the position that was reached collectively. The statement released on Monday was constructed with input from the entire Society Board, regardless of whether they were supportive of the investment proposal or not. So, in short, we still don't know why 3 members voted for acceptance of EB's proposal. Just to emphasise I wasn't looking for personal details or a detailed account of who said what; just a summary, of the minority view.

A few of us warned of this very situation months ago Allan, especially when the Society held a 2:1 majority on the Executive Board, and it stated that it wasn't actively involved in negotiations. Why not? Its absurd to think that the majority shareholder wasn't actively involved. I've no idea of the reasons for that. I'm encouraged that EB is minded to amend his proposal, although there's a fair way to go before it will be acceptable to me. In these situations I always take the view what can we do to make it work, rather than walking away or outright refusal? EB has been open, on P & B, at least. I'd like to think the Executive Board and Society will be a little more open, although their position is somewhat different. For many, including me, the detailed accounting is above our heads and an idiots guide would be useful. As for the Society Board, its treading a fine line. It has to show unity and a consistent approach, but should never become an echo chamber. Diverse views and frank discussions are vital.

If he does well well, we all all be choughed. If he doesn't there will be some amount of snipeing.

Hope he doesn't prove to be an albatross round our neck. If he does we'll have a genuine grouse.

That's pretty much where I'm at. I'm going to contact the Society board to find out the reasons why the 3 members voted to accept the deal. There must be some logic behind their views. I only want their collective reasons behind their vote no more. They're all Well fans as you say. No recriminations and no witchhunt. We may have different views within the support and thats only natural. As Mintymac suggests we now need to show some unity.

I think Spiderpig has raised broadly similar concerns and there may be some justification for that. The Society does need a broad mix of expertise and skills. As I said, the the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We'll know more when the Society publishes its proposal. We need to give it a chance.

Isn't that, in many ways an alternative "investment" plan to Erik Barmack's? Granted its a very different model.