Kmcalpin

That's my belief. It seems clear to me that the Society, maybe for a totally understandable reason, decided to produce an alternative proposal at a late stage. I'd also like to know a little more about the other investment proposals, in addition to to the 2 we've been "told about". As a matter of priority though, the Society needs to clarify for members those who were eligible to vote. That will quash any confusion and nip any unnecessary and potentially harmful speculation in the bud.

I'm sure the owner of Strongman Removals is a Well fan for example. That's perhaps the type / size of business I'm thinking of. I should say I haven't dealt with them personally.

I'm sure there isn't. Once you join, either by paying a £300 lump sum, or make your first Monthly payment of £3 then you're a member and entitled to vote. My career was in town planning and we would hold a public consultation, which might attract say 3,600 responses. That equated to about 1% of those eligible to respond. Not great. A bulldozer then appears next to a village to start a new housing development and all hell breaks loose. Our reply would be you had the chance to comment but didn't its too late. I think there's an element of that here, although as we've discussed, there are likely to be many other factors at play.

What you're saying is right. My suggestion though, in the first instance, is to get the Society to promote local small/very small businesses, with an affinity to MFC, to the members with no obligation. For example "Jimmy Bair joiners - Jimmy is a well fan/season ticket holder...contact him for your joinery needs." Stage 2 would be, in return, to get Jimmy help the Society in some way. That way we're supporting local businesses and they support us.

Fair points Denny. Remember though that over 1,000 members were not eligible to vote, being juniors presumably. First priority I'd argue is to check and update membership records; do so very publicly and announce th results to members. I'm sufficiently sceptical of the results to think there could be some, I don't know how many, errors in the database. Maybe the Society could broadcast far and wide for members who did not receive any voting communication to contact them PDQ.

Some truth in that. The consultation did seem rushed.

I take several things from the results. A quick calculation shows that the adult membership (all those entitled to vote) is approximately 2,760;the rest being juniors. As I understand it, all those adults who are paying monthly or have put in lump sums were entitled to vote. To me the low response rate is very concerning and is the main conclusion I draw from the results. Why is that? Is every member contactable by email? Some may not be. I also suspect that there are errors in the membership database - not all down to the Society. I can't quantify them. Some would not understand the wording of the question, as it was a bit woolly, as others have said. Apathy - yes. I voted yes, but have no knowledge whatsoever of the 2 actual offers. I may well change my mind once I find out the details (in fact I probably will).

I did think about him. He's a big lad with intimidating presence at 6-4, and can command his box. Has proved to be a good loan deal for Rossco. He's saved them a few goals. Doubt if we could afford him on loan though. On another tack, and I've seen it mentioned elsewhere, does anyone think that Sam Nicholson was brought in as a possible long term replacement for Blair Spittal, who will almost certainly leave.

First of all welcome. Great first post. I've been banging on about this very issue for several years now and whatever strategy the Society adopts, increasing member income is a must. When the Society was first launched in 2011 there were several ways in which members could pay to attain certain levels of membership such as Steel, Amber etc. Many such as myself paid in lump sums and we thought thats it. Others began to pay in modest monthly amounts. The marketing strategy was never updated and some members, like me, stopped paying and others fell by the wayside for several reasons. Payment/membership methods just evolved without any systematic or methodical approach or publicity. By default, monthly subscriptions became the norm. We were never really informed about this change or encouraged to set up monthly DDs. This has improved, a bit, of late I have to say. What is required now is to completely relaunch the subscription options and publicise them to all and sundry. Contact all memebrs, so that we all know. What about junior members who have now become adults? Season ticket holders who are not members? Good point. Some are inherently opposed to the Society and will not change; thats life. Some were extremely cautious and suspicious at the outset and thought they'd lose their hard earned money to a seemingly hare brained scheme. Thats the 2 reasons I know about. In addition, there will be a host of other reasons. Some research might not go amiss here - brief interviews on match days? Much work needs to be done to increase membership subscriptions. A starting point will be to update all records, although thats easier said than done. Although important, member subscriptions will not be sufficient to raise necessary funds. What about connecting to local businesses? There are bound to be many self employed members or owners of small businesses. What about advertising their services? Providing that they were competitive pricewise, I'm sure members would rather give their custom to other Well fans would they not? Just a few thoughts from a rank and file perspective.

Shamal George?

A deserved win last night and an important one. Wherever we end up, it won't be in 12th spot. I've been critical of SK in the past, but I wouldn't blame him for last night's team selection. Both Vale and Gent were running on empty after Sunday and looked as if they'd taken knocks. Maybe a controversial suggestion but could Obika have started in place of Nicholson and been subbed at half time; but thats being wise in hindsight. Livingston scored the obligatory goal and fortunately it came very early; early enough in fact to allow us to recover. As against Celtic, we defended too deeply but still left gaps to be exploited. After a 14 minute spell of high pressing, Livi then decided to sit back and defend their single goal lead; that was on Martindale. I thought their gameplan was working pretty well and we could learn lessons from them. We did however fashion some chances from crosses which we failed to convert. Their big back line defended deeply and their strikers / midfield fought for everyting and defended 40 yards out. They swarmed around our our wide men and made it hard for us to get anywhere near goal. Bair was left isolated (hence my Obika comment). Our midfield struggled to create anything and was forced back anytime they tried to advance much over the halfway line. Plenty of possession but no penetration. SK transformed the second half with the introduction of the lively Vale for the out of touch Davor. We then began to play some nice footie and started to hit the byline. Just after the break Nicholson notched his first goal for us to be followed by Spittal and Vale. All well taken goals. Late on we saw the appearance of Gent, Blaney and Obika and saw the game out well. Overall a good team performance, Livi's early goal and our defending apart. We played some nice football as well. So SK and SK deserve credit for getting it right on the night, as do the players. I thought Livi were overly physical and niggly and very streetwise. Just what you'd expect. I thought John Beaton let them off with a lot - play acting, niggles, timewasting. One absurd incident summed it up for me. We were awarded a free kick and were about to place the ball, when a Livi player grabbed it and then threw it about 10 yards away, right under the ref's nose. Surely a yellow card; no action taken. A good night all round though. A final word of credit to the Well Bois, Block E, East Stand Collective(?). Pyros apart (thats another issue), they sang and drummed all night and created atmosphere. Well done lads.

You read it here first!

I thought I'd read a few weeks ago that it had now climbed to around 3,800. It may have climbed further still in the last week or so, as the investment issue grabbed members' attention. What I don't know is the adult/junior/low income split, and that will make a difference to monthly income. Monthly income may be increasing as we write.

Where is the best place to park at Livingston for an evening game? The last twice I've been there at night I've parked just to the north of the stadium. Great access before the match but horrendous congestion afterwards.

I've learnt never to rely on others to help us out. We have to do it by ourselves starting with a convincing win tomorrow evening.

I fully agree Denny. When the time comes, if it ever does, to consider alternative proposals in detail, we need to have as many hard facts and informed estimates as possible. I don't know what the current figure is, but a few years ago, monthly income through subscriptions was about £12K per month. It may well have risen considerably since then as membership has increased and original joiners switched to monthly subscriptions.

Without knowing much about the lad, I very much doubt so, if we base our view on Stuart McKinstry, Bailey Rice and Reece MacAlear etc. When giants like Brighton come calling, many won't refuse. However maybe he'll follow the lead of David Turnbull and Lennon Miller. I really hope so.

Did every Society member receive an email about Zoom sessions this coming Sunday? A positive step forward and I just hope sufficient members show an interest and take part.

I did post yesterday that he was on crutches so this simply confirms what we already know. Not good news. What are we doing in training? He was missed yesterday.

In answer to StAndrew7 on the Stuart Kettlewell thread, I agree we're not being asked to sell our shares. Any new investment, should it go ahead, would involve the party buying newly issued shares. As far as I know, no existing shareholder, be it the Society or small individuals like myself, would be asked to sell. However our percentage shareholding would be diluted i.e. 1.5 million shares out of 2.1 million issued currently = 71% but 1.5 million shares out of say 3.5million = 43%. (These figures are just illustrative).

You can understand why though. If they banned the culprits, it would save them a few grand in repair costs. However they'd lose much much more in ticket/commercial sales as diehards took the huff.

Apologies now being told that monthly subscriptions have to be in £5 levels as per the website. £5 £10 £25 £50

Spot on Grizzly. I think Gent also took a knock. Agree about Blaney. My main concern, oddly enough is not about our defence as its a "known known" but our midfield, which was as soft as s**t yesterday. We have limited options. Could Nicholson play for half an hour? Is it worth giving Elliott 20 minutes or so? We know he's not match fit but he must have a certain level of fitness, otherwise he wouldn't have been on the bench yesterday. I've never been a football purist so don't really care how we set up so long as its effective on the carpet. For the record its not an axminster. Its not nice to say but I'll do so anyway - although it would be great to win it, even by a single goal, it would be even better to crush them and deal them a psychological hammer blow. The team has to be fired up for this game, no ifs no buts, so slip them a wee bonus, for a win, to help their mentality.

Well done. Bear in mind too that my figure of £35 is an underestimate as quite a few of of our 3,800 members will be minors paying a lot less than £10 a month.

You can pay in whatever amount you like ie £2, £6, £8.50, £17 whatever - just contact the Society to arrange (I've asked). The £5, £10 etc options are only there for convenience. I would reckon that if monthly subscriptions were to cover a shortfall in bad year we're looking at 3,800 members paying in an average of about £35 each every month. Thats a very crude figure of course and doesn't take into account any other fund raising initiatives. (£1.6m /3,800/12)