East_Stand_Al Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 For those who were not able ti be at the meeting today, the club will be having an open meeting where you can find out more and see why this option is being favoured. We were told that all the various options have been looked at (Reconstruction has been getting debated on for 14 years) and whilst some of the other options were felt to be viable for the future of MFC this is expected to be the one option that 11/12 teams will back. I was very skeptical ahead of the meeting today but went with an open mind, listened to the proposals and agree this is the way forward however as was said it should be viewed as a first step on the way to a bigger top league and a benefit for the whole of Scottish Football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I had no intention of going to the meeting today as my mind is already closed to the proposals but if there is a genuine framework for working towards a bigger league I can live with it for now. I fully expect fuck all good to come of it though. On another note anything that keeps the SPL in place long enough to call Charles Green's bluff gets my vote as well so hopefully we don't rush into merging the governing bodies just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 There are so many panty wetters and doom mongers on this board it is unreal. A fair % don`t even attend games and a fair % were against the idea before actually listening to the facts and any direct implications for Motherwell FC. Would have been nice if they let me listen to the facts, but my membership fee isn't as good as those who could attend, so all I get is a couple of twitter messages telling me how the others voted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMc Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Would have been nice if they let me listen to the facts, but my membership fee isn't as good as those who could attend, so all I get is a couple of twitter messages telling me how the others voted. I decided not to go as I felt I would not really contibute and wanted those that could to attend; if the concensus was that it is best for the club I and those who attended love then that is good enough for me. I appreciate everyone has paid their membership and the Well Society should be looking into ways of opening the meetings to all wherever you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 The bottom line is that a number of loyal and dedicated Motherwell fans went along today with an open mind and sided with the board and the proposed changes. that number is somewhere 45 and 55 and i don't think the turnout was representative of the society members or the support as a whole. it was a good meeting but less than 20% of the society were in attendance so i don't think there can be a conclusion drawn on the society's position from this afternoon. i was one of three attending members who were against the proposed reconstruction at the end of the meeting. i'll post about what derek weir and leeann dempster had to say in favour of the proposals tomorrow to try and give a bit of detail to those who weren't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welldaft Mk1 Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 that number is somewhere 45 and 55 and i don't think the turnout was representative of the society members or the support as a whole. it was a good meeting but less than 20% of the society were in attendance so i don't think there can be a conclusion drawn on the society's position from this afternoon. i was one of three attending members who were against the proposed reconstruction at the end of the meeting. i'll post about what derek weir and leeann dempster had to say in favour of the proposals tomorrow to try and give a bit of detail to those who weren't there. That would be appreciated Steelboy. Still if I read your post correctly is that 3 posters including yourself were against the proposals. 3 out of say 50 attendees is 6% of the turnout. That is a fairly small % all things considered and much lower than I would have thought, even if the attendance was not that fantastic. I am quite sure a lot more than 6% of those attending were against the proposals before the meeting today..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmmfc Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I didn't go as the SFL clubs don't agree with the 12-12-18 SPL proposal so thought it to be a waste of time really as it could all change in the next few weeks again (remember we were told the SPL had to be a division of 10 or the game was a bogey!). As people keep going on about meaningless games, why don't we reset the points for everyone after 22 games? If we're resetting the points for the team at the top of the 1st Division after 22 games, why don't we go the full hog and reset the points for the team at the top of the SPL. Seems to me that there would only be 1 team against that idea! That would mean no games are meaningless. I know this seems ridiculous but tis the season to suggest ridiculous league set-ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I really struggle to understand how the 888 setup appeals to sponsors and broadcasters. Given the small number in attendance, many of which I suspect will support whatever the club tells them, I'd like to think this will get voted against by the sane majority. For those that were easily swayed today, you really should have voted yes for Rangers last summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East_Stand_Al Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I didn't go as the SFL clubs don't agree with the 12-12-18 SPL proposal. According to the media reports, Derek Weir today said he spoke to an SFL Chairman who had no idea where this story came from. I was glad I did go today as we were given the same information the club have on the proosals and Leeanne and Derek were very open and honest with their information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special aka Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I really struggle to understand how the 888 setup appeals to sponsors and broadcasters. And are the sponsors and broadcasters really more important than the 96% of fans who said poke yer 12 team SPL ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I attended, tried to tweet through a lot of it but when the nitty griity came out got distracted Really poor turnout, all excuses accepted, still gives the impression its not that serious an issue to society members? around 60 so whats that 6% of the society? 1-2% of the regular crowd? feeling around the room, is that most went in being against the proposal, and as has been indicated, most left showing they were in support of it I was one of three who said they couldn't (greetings comrade Steelboy, be interested in what DW took you aside at the end if to do with your non agreement) now I want to put that in context, I am only against it because once again all the clubs have forgot to even include any measures to alleviate any of the major gripes from all the fans surveys I have seen, the focus is very much on change and financials that allow survival, in many different potenital situations, versus the continued slow decline with the all but imposible task of bringing in step changes for good against falling revenue streams BUT, I do probably have more inclination to say that the sheer madness of 12-12-18 or 12-12-10-10 if the SFL so desire isnt what I'll choose to speak out against every fan should listen to the full breakdown of the proposals and the reasoning why, I reckon it'll be enough to sway at least 50% of you main jist is that , the package of changes is being supported over individual step changes ie change voting rights, because individual clubs will block single changes , whereas after many years of attempting to bring change about this is the first time they have been even close to full agreement and it is only becasue of the combined changes, changes that include taking a huge chunk of prize money being taken away from SPL 1st and 2nd prizes, as well as removing the SFL settlement payment and also removing the SFL £1mill slice of TV revenue for Rangers. all of which is being pooled and re-distributed down the leagues Supporting the top clubs of what is the SFL, with the aim of strengthening more Fulltime clubs away from boom or bust nature ( or as explained away from the bust or bust nature they and many SPL clubs are currently operating under) A lot of information was passed over, way too much for any one summation, so everyone that can should attend the next event and listen Weeyin and the far flung society members, the lack of coverage was raised, you have a real issue to take up with the society chairman, who mentioned it had been discussed, but really didnt give impression anything was to change. From unskilled shorthand notes outwith the distractions: LD Proposed League Reconstruction: Make change or do nothing LD lot of passion but a lot of misinformation, club want to let everyfan know facts LD only two options, go with the proposal or stay as we are (stay as are, crawling towards change but never get there) Proposal was explained, most will know its 12-12-18 various discussion on pros cons concerns etc, most I've read on here and other threads but what was elaborated on was the distribution of funds loads more GOING for a Beer might come back and add to post...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Thanks for the summary Iain. If at all possible I'll attend the next meeting and then make my mind up. If I understand you correctly, the powers that be have concluded that a package of measures (some of which are more palatable than other bits) have to be combined in order to make the overall proposal feasible. That doesn't surprise me. Each club will vote on a selfish basis and will look for different gains from the package. Like it or not clubs will effectively say "If you give us X we'll vote yes". Being realistic its unlikely that the entire package will be to every clubs liking but in order to get change through, horse trading, negotiation and yes compromise is necessary. Not ideal but if change is to be effected then concessions must be made. Thats not principled but its realistic and its how the real world works and how things get done. What do we make of the poor turnout today? Yes, the short notice of the meeting would be a factor but we have to conclude that many members aren't overly concerned about the proposed changes. Some are for, some against and many simply don' t care. The issue of involving overseas/faraway members is an important one and one which I've raised before and will do so again. The bottom line though is that whatever is agreed or not agreed I'll support MFC and the Society to the last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Yes Dave you get the point that was put across some clubs will simply not agree to single individual changes e.g to change voting rights, they know almost all clubs want it, but use their blocking vote to get some other factor included and in other instances, clubs cannot justify agreeing to a change like MFC for example could not vote to singularly distribute all the millions out of the SPL prize fund, or to exposing MFC to more relegation risk, but they can agree with it when it is bundled with the league restructure which removes other financial burdens and importantly also changes the financial risk management of finishing in the lower half of the league. hence the genuine belief from clubs that they have to go with this group of changes or stay as is, as they do not think any meaningful changes will get through all with the backdrop of no league sponsor and dropping prize funds and limited commerical income due to the unrest it was laid out that if Motherwell were to achieve 3rd again this season, then we would be £300-400k worse off, with whats in the SPL income and what has to leave due to old agreements for the SFL settlement and the added slice of TV money that had to be given away for Rangers tv rights as I said I didnt back the proposal as I for all the horse trading that has went on between clubs, and whilst they all sell it as for the benefit of the clubs ( incl fans) nothing has been included for the benefit of the matchday attending fan I tried to get across the point that it brings risk to ST sales, increased frustration of unknown opponents and even more match scheduling getting changed we heard that the club are frustrated at the likes of the early sunday TV slot on ESPN a deal that was basically outed as not financially worth the disruption and losses the clubs incur, well in my mind to get fans on board if we are all to make sacrifice of what we believe is for the good, then some leeway has to be given to fans If its not, then in my opinion the demise continues, with more fans choosing to have no ST , PATG fans cherry picking games, pricing still way too high along with the poor scheduling still strangling home and visting fans Lets just say majority at todays meeting , would nearly always go with your final statement about always supporting the are so roped up in the whole thing, but even some in that group are missing out on games and wondering why but we all know of many many more that are already missing or are on the brink of picking and choosing, none of which has been factored in, the clubs are as usual just expecting the same old fans to turn out but haven't even had the decency to factor in even one small token improvement, like scrapping the early Sunday ko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 we heard that the club are frustrated at the likes of the early sunday TV slot on ESPN a deal that was basically outed as not financially worth the disruption and losses the clubs incur, well in my mind to get fans on board if we are all to make sacrifice of what we believe is for the good, then some leeway has to be given to fans Yes, I've known the club, like we fans, is frustrated at TV scheduling - it makes arranging games a nightmare. On the whole, the fans have been marginalised from the whole debate and thats downright wrong. Firstly in terms of consultation only 2 clubs that I know of (there may be more) have bothered to consult their fans and thats St Mirren and ourselves. Very disappointing as its a basic courtesy. In particular I feel for the likes of Hearts fans who have recently been asked to help out their club financially by literally buying into it with their own cash. Will they be consulted - a resounding NO. Involvement is something else. The proposals will contain many components, some of which the fans don't and can't know about - commercial considerations for example. However on the crucial elements like reorganising the Governing body and to a slightly lesser extent league reconstruction, fans views should be taken on board. Back to TV companies' influence. Many on here and elsewhere moan and whinge constantly about rescheduling of games to suit TV companies' balance sheets. However I'm willing to suggest that most of them will have bought those very same TV companies' soccer packages and indeed watch them. Well there's one simple solution - the ball is in your court folks - don't watch them or even cancel them. Our fans are part of the solution but also part of the problem. If you're in pubs/clubs with live games then ask them to switch off or over. If you hate rescheduled games then don't watch footie on the TV - simples. Cut off the financial lifleline of the companies concerned and take the game back into our own hands - don't pass all the responsibility to the clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 So basically everyone gets a wee bit of what they want, except the fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 brazilian has summed it up well. the club feel that sticking with the current set up will lead to a decline in spl total income and also the gap between the spl and first division clubs will continue to widen to a point where it can't be closed, they seem particulary interested in seeing partick, accies and morton in the top flight due to the support they would bring to fir park. everyone seems to agree that merging the spl and sfl and distributing more cash to the first division clubs are positive steps and there is nothing controversial in that. the board believe that the current spl brand has been damaged to such an extent that it is putting off potential sponsors who might replace clydesdale as the main sponsor next season. the argument is that a new set up will be more attractive to sponsors and also provide extra content to sell to tv and that the extra money can be used for the benefit of the whole professional game. they also believe that the split and the middle 8 will be beneficial to us as a club by generating interest pre and post split and the being in middle eight with points scrapped would be preferable to a bottom six finish in a poor season. i put points forward about the effect the new set up would have on season ticket sales (11 guaranteed fixtures vs 16 or 17 at the moment), the drawbacks of the early split after 22 games and fans being unwilling to accept the principle of points being scrapped. weir and dempster both acknowledged that these were problems but they felt that the benefits of the new set up and the financial problems of retaining the status quo outweighed those issues. as brazialian mentioned earlier derek asked for a word with me at the end of the meeting and we spoke about it all in a bit more detail. both he and leeann explained the problems facing us a club and the complications involved involved in trying to get clubs to agree to any kind of change very well. for my part i told them that i believed that the problem was that the major drawbacks of the changes were the parts that would effect the match going fan and that they were underestimating the potential these proposals -particularly scrapping points - have to alienate the hardcore fan and that fans are easier lost than gained at the moment. it looks like this happening and we'll all just have to decide individually how it effects our match going habits. i was quite surprised that the meeting ended up so in favour of the proposals but as i said before it wasn't a particularly board section of the support in attendance. to be fair to them leeann and derek were both keen to hear and engage with an opposing view point and i'm sure they would be happy to discuss this with anyone who feels strongly about it. at the moment they are the ones with the responsibility for running the club and although i disagree with them they are acting with the best of intentions. on the subject of the society the board members need to find out a way to engage with the membership beyond those who can make it up to fir park for meetings on a regular basis. it will be difficult but that should be the number one priority currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Thanks to Iain and Steelboy for relaying that back. And good to hear that constructive feedback on the effect on the match day attenders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special aka Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 ............................... . to be fair to them leeann and derek were both keen to hear and engage with an opposing view point and i'm sure they would be happy to discuss this with anyone who feels strongly about it. at the moment they are the ones with the responsibility for running the club and although i disagree with them they are acting with the best of intentions............. Agree or disagree with the proposals, imho the current Board are the most communicative and listening folks I've known at the helm of MFC in my 40+ yrs of support. Respects. Thanks to those who have taken the time to summarise for us non-attendees. Respects also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Nae bother , thanks, Rasta-pie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East_Stand_Al Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 So basically everyone gets a wee bit of what they want, except the fans? The Fans want ; A better product on the pitch More variety of games(we played DUFC 7 times last season), a better standard throughout the game, 1 ruling body as opposed to 2 we have just now (SPL/SFL), a larger top flight, less meaningless games .More even distribution of monies throughout the game, The survival of their individual club change from the 11-1 voting structure etc. Albeit in the longer term this proposal seems to deliver all of these things, Since the collapse of Setanata we have never been in a position of strength to negotiate with the TV Companies as was alluded to at the meeting and has been mentioned above there is less money available this season than last, there is still no League sponsor for next season and the TV Companies are losing interest rapidly. We are 14 years down the line since league reconstruction talks started and we seem to have found an option that is palletable to all the clubs and looks set to be the only option they will all agree on. The only other option is the Status Quo ad infinitum. Please keep an open mind the devil is indeed in the details Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Please keep an open mind the devil is indeed in the details Were any details discussed? I haven't heard a single concrete proposal for anything except the ridiculous league structure. And even with that, it's only recently that we have been drip fed the idea that its intention is to allow a larger top division to be created. I'll bet that idea hasn't been fleshed out - sounds more like a sop to the dissenters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East_Stand_Al Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Were any details discussed? I haven't heard a single concrete proposal for anything except the ridiculous league structure. And even with that, it's only recently that we have been drip fed the idea that its intention is to allow a larger top division to be created. I'll bet that idea hasn't been fleshed out - sounds more like a sop to the dissenters. Lots of details given from Leeann Dempster and Derek Weir (which they will get to all the fans) what is abundantly clear is that to do nothing is to slowly strangle what little life is left in the game, The idea is to take away some of the money form the very top and distribute it to the teams further down, long term this means less of a gap between the current SPL and SFL who can therefore be more competitive and this could lead to a larger league. Under the current structure for a team such as us in the event of relegation it becomes imoerative to come back uo the following season or full time professional football becomes very difficult to sustain, under the new proposals it is not just as much of a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Presumably changes in the voting structure amongst this proposed package of measures? I could well have missed it if it has been specifically mentioned. Any detail from yesterday as to what these changes would entail and how they might affect future changes. I ask as I note from those who were there yesterday that the club said individual clubs have scuppered individual motions in the past - such as league reconstruction. At the same time it's been mentioned part of these raft of changes are designed to cut the gap between SPL and SFL clubs and to begin the steps to move towards a bigger league. I just wonder how smooth the path is being made for that to happen, however many years down the line that may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 still plenty of grey areas Andy but yes restructuring the voting was mentioned 75% of votes required is the proposal dependant on the action being voted on, that would be 75% of each group/league or the whole lot Mr Weir added "there would be protected ares" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Cheers Sir. That would *appear* to be a move in the right direction, although ofcourse it remains to be seen what will be viewed as protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.