Kmcalpin

Good post Denny. I agree 100%

I've seen this in print several times Denny from quite a few posters, and perhaps you're right. I am, or more accurately was, concerned that as the major shareholder, the Society would not get involved in the running of the club. By that I mean at a strategic, not day to day level. In other words continue to adopt a passive "hands off" role to the strategic running of the club. There have been suggestions on here recently that the Society's, soon to be launched, strategy would solely focus on the Society itself. It would be inward looking. That did worry me. However in tonight's email it states that "Next week, we will also be launching our extensive strategy for the Well Society and Motherwell Football Club". That encourages me no end. That gives me hope that the Society will provide more strategic direction to the club, as it should, in my view.

Going back a month or two to the discussion on Andy Halliday & PCAs. Dundee has cancelled Ricki Lamie's PCA "by mutual consent". Very considerate of Ricki to take a voluntary wage cut......

Yes to Lanarkshire, but not to us.

I quite get that Denny. The Society Board has other fish to fry at the moment, but maybe no harm in releasing a short statement to Members to reiterate 1) What the difference is and 2) Very roughly, what the soon to be released Strategy will cover and/or what it won't. This could be done in 2 paragraphs and might head off some trouble at the pass.

There will be a good reason for that. For the record, I'm against the EB proposal. I was always taught that its counterproductive, and sometimes dangerous, in any debate or discussion to say "I can't understand why you think that or you're not understanding me" or words to that effect. In such a situation I always took it upon myself that it was my fault that I wasn't explaining things properly or not listening to the other party. We may well be right in any discussion, but we have to understand where the other party is coming from. Thats down to us to listen and address their concerns. All that said, some fans genuinely believe that the EB proposal is worth supporting. Thats democracy, and a foundation of the Society.

You're right. I thought it very odd. I sourced my fixture list from the official site. I suspect that that contained an error, which has been quickly rectiifed

A good opener and a chance to rack up 3 early points on the board. Some weird fixture combinations though. 3 away games on the trot at the end of October and beginning of November. I've never seen that before. 5 games away out of 6, stretching into early December. Is that a record?

From reading posts on here, and on P & B and certainly on FB it seems that the "discussion" has now reached a stalemate stage with polarised views. That said, there have been some very decent posts and a lot of interesting research has been carried out. Sadly, some acrimony is creeping in to the considerations, especially on FB. Entrenched division will help no-one, least of all our club. I suspect little will change now until the Society publishes its long awaited Strategic Plan and the Wild Sheep vote takes place. Lets be patient with the Society meantime.

Likewise. Perhaps someone could clarify this for us. If true, the deal needs examined to ascertain that its favourable to us.

Great idea. One thing that does concern me more than anything just now is a split in our support due to the current investment situation. Most online posts are reasonable, but there are few which are adversarial in tone. Above all else we need to show a united front on the footballing side and get right behind the team, from the off, as in Saturday 6th.

The Society shouldn't be involved in such decisions. Leave that to the club.🤣

Was just about to post exactly that! An uninspiring M & S top. Great minds think alike.

Very good post, with which I agree 95% of the way. We have to be very careful though not to stray into political territory. The Society must avoid that at all costs. Once the Society starts getting involved in those kind of issues, it will start to alienate significant sections of its membership, many of who might terminate their association. Its a tricky one for sure. If it didn't take sides, then that would alienate some; if it did take sides then it would alienate others. Best not to go there in my view.

Yes I've dealt with Sally a few times and always found her helpful. However, I do think she needs someone else to help her

Yes, that has raised a few eyebrows.

I think there is some kind of middle ground here. I can see where Spiderpig, David and StAndrew7 are all coming from. The principle of the WS being run by volunteers is fine but, it does need to exert more strategic control over the club. This is entirely consistent with it being the major shareholder. To date its been far too passive, for various reasons. Thats not to say that it should run the club on a day to day basis. It shouldn't. Currently I think it employs 1 employee, full time or not I don't know. That perhaps needs to be increased slightly. Its simply too much for one person to handle.

Agreed StAndrew. Seems a good signing. Steelboy has been granted his wish for a big commanding central defender and to be fair he was right about rectifying that deficiency. All we need now is another keeper and left back. Maybe another striker if Theo moves on.

Has Matty Connelly re-signed then? The last I heard a few weeks ago, was that he had been made an offer but was yet to make his mind up.

Presumably we'll have nominated an outfield player as back up goalie, unless we have a trialist. Maybe Neil Alexander has been registered as temporary back up?

The lodging of the Wild Sheep proposal has brought many hitherto festering issues to the fore. Of immediate concern the Society's representation on the Executive Board. Its position as the major shareholder needs to be reflected in its composition, both in principle and in practice. In the medium, if not the shorter term, the Society Board needs to take a more proactive and assertive role in the running of the club at a strategic level, and that includes finances and investment, from whatever source. It cannot afford to simply say its nothing to do with us thats up to the club. That strategic role should not include day to day decision making or financial management. The appropriate medium for this would be 3 Society reps on the Executive Board. Again this merely reflects strategic direction from the major shareholder. The looming spectre of a financial mineshaft opening up in our back garden, courtesy of Jim McMahon, seems to have disappeared. However a decision needs to be taken by the Society as to its role, probably through consultation with members, and maybe via an amendment to the constitution. Should the club simply continue as is, or should it seek to modernise to retain our status and competitiveness with close rivals? A fundamental question for members I suspect. Santheman has just posted as I type. "I'm not for a minute expecting them to go knocking on doors but if the changes we want to see in the boardroom came about and the WS became the dominant force then seeking investment would surely be in their remit as Executive Directors." I agree 100% with that. The Society needs to start exerting itself, befitting its role as the major shareholder.

When we're speaking to a parent with a prospective Academy entrant I think that selling point might well leave them somewhat.....unimpressed. My point is that our competitors are upping their game.

Your comments are always realistic and worth considering San, and when you post, I sit up and take notice. We've read thousands of words on here and elsewhere expressing negative sentiments, and thats fine and just. Comments about what isn't acceptable and that in itself is very helpful but we must must now move the discussion on in a more positive vein. I'm hopeful that the Well Society's impending announcement will do exactly that. Yes, I think you're right, in that Society members may well have to dig deeper, and I don't think some will have a problem with that (there is a limit to this source though). However, I hope that the Society comes up with more, much more than that. Unless the vote is pulled, then the Society has to consider 2 scenarios in its strategic plan. The first being that the Wild Sheep proposal is deemed acceptable by stakeholders. The second being that its rejected and the Society, does its own thing, for the time being at least. Apart from the membership contributing more, if indeed thats whats advocated, I really hope that the Society's Plan focuses very heavily on community and local business involvement. In my eyes this is absolutely critical to investment. Half hearted attempts were made in the past to do this with very limited success. It will also have to be careful not to impinge on the club's contact with businesses; rather build on that and complement it. I'm hopeful that the Society will do the above given its recent attitudes survey. Its how it uses that information that will count. An absolute must in my view is for the Society to reinstate its own website and surely this should be done quickly and at relatively low cost given the number of experts in our support, many of whom would no doubt volunteer their services free of charge as they have generously done in the past. As a aside, for those who wish to preserve the club as it is, as opposed to conserving it, Kilmarnock have announced plans for a new upgraded Academy facility. That is what we'll be competing against.

You've hit the nail on the head Allan. That would be a win win situation. Time will tell if its achievable. We'll be in a better position once we see the Society's new strategic plan. Either that or a philanthropic white knight or lady and I can't see any riding towards us even with my telescope.

IF that were to be the case, presumably if I were to offer to gift or donate even a modest amount of privately held shares, to take its holding even very slightly over the 50.1% then that would be blocked by the Executive Board?