The Well Society

[StipeIsGod]

Not desperately in love with fan ownership, but as an idea, I hope it succeeds. This lengthier timescale increases my optimism, admittedly, as I can see it start to work, and perhaps get a bit more invested in it.

[Fairhill]

I'm deadly serious for various reasons. The main one being that the leagues north and south of the border ate littered with clubs who have gone to the wall or ate in serious financial straits thanks to benefactors who decided they knew best.

 

From Hearts to Gretna to Dundee to Livingston to Rangers. I'm not saying it will be the case here, but nepotism is rarely beneficial and I'm wary of deal conditions that involve giving family members jobs.

 

Having a successful business is great, but as many have shown in the past, football is not your regular business model. If it was, we'd have a healthy league with healthy profits every year from every club.

 

A look back at my posts will show I'm in favour of outside investments, but as a Society member, I feel there should be consulation on the details of the deal. I have been around the block enough times to know everything in business is negotiable.

 

I agree there have been examples of outsiders who have been disastrous, Rangers being a prime example, but if the club and the society weren't fully aware of that danger I'd be very surprised. I'm also not sure who approached who to start the talks, but I don't think LH is in this for any reason other than helping the team survive. I'm not aware that sports ownership is very high on his bucket list.

 

My point is simply that Motherwell needs to be brought into financial stability, and the previous ownership failed to do that, other than during administration. The losses over the last couple of years have been in spite of the team playing beyond its skill level, so it is easy to wonder if a new approach might be needed going forward. There is now an opportunity to see a different approach. Given that the intent is still fan ownership, it might be best to let the new owner select new board members. I think the society should sit on the board, provided their nominees are qualified to practice football management more than just the lads in the stand.

 

We've all been loyal supporters, some of us for a long time, but a professional team is fundamentally a business in which decisions have consequences, and ultimately it's the quality of those decisions that will determine whether or not the team survives. In the short time I think the new group, having put up the money, should have the freedom, as well as our respect and thanks, to mould MFC as they see fit. If they are wise they will seek opinions from others as I'm sure they already have. It will be interesting to see how the board unfolds. More importantly it will be interesting to see whether enough people start to show up for games to make this new investment worthwhile.

[Goggles & Flippers]

I don't see how he can appoint 3 members onto the WS Board. At the moment there are 6 (or possibly even 7 if Douglas Dickie is still on the Board) Directors and a further 3 brings it to 9/10. Rule 53 state a maximum of 8.

 

Also the Board composition under Rule 53 (a) states that "4 members of the Society Board (or such higher number as shall be required so that elected members of the Board are in a majority over co-opted members) will be elected by the members in accordance with such arrangements as shall be determined by the Society Board;"

 

Then again maybe the Rules don't matter ....

 

From what I understand 3 are co-opted and unelected, they may have been asked to step down to make way, however a message from the society to clear it up is now imperative.

 

Come on guys, you read the boards, you know you've been criticised for your communication, however things are now out in the open you can share much more.

 

As someone who has contributed money I really couldn't afford at the time, I don't appreciate hearing what's happening by listening to the radio at 2:45 rather than directly from you.

[Andy_P]

Having had a chance to digest the club statement from Friday and read the BBC report (I didn't catch the interview which may have revealed more) I remain delighted that in the short to medium things look a good deal more secure for the club, and that the goal of fan ownership remains a reality.

 

There do remain a few questions for me though.

 

I'm trying to get my head around how Les Hutchison's investment fits in with the process we've been involved in over the past few years.

 

More likely I've misinterpreted things but from day one we would appear to have been attempting to build a WS kitty if you like to effectively build up enough financial muscle to be able to manage the club affairs yes? And in proving that Boyle would then transfer over the shares?

 

Since earlier this year we've been seeking to build that kitty with a bit more urgency. The WS were looking for increased commitment from supporters and soft loans to get to that next level right?

 

Yet the reports I'm reading appear to suggest Hutchison's loan has gone to the club and not the WS and that the WS will continue to provide ongoing support.

 

So who pays the loan back and on what terms? Is it the club through existing operating activities whilst the WS continue to build up a kitty? Is it the WS directly through existing and future funds?

 

 

Perhaps it will become clear when the 30 day period is concluded and all is tied up legally.

 

At that stage I think we'll need some clarity at where the WS funds stand, the make up of those funds and what we are looking at going forward to judge how to press forward in getting more people on board. What I'm sure the WS don't want for instance is folk to think external investor has put his dosh in so we can forget about things for the next 5 years.

As I say a great step forward but not without questions and posers ahead.

 

 

[stuwell]

From what I understand, this guy has no intention of trying to take over MFC and what he has done is to facilitate the takeover of the club by the WS. Yes he has put in place some thing to protect his cash but for the time being I'm happy to let everything get sorted out and then for both the WS and LH to issue a statement outlining how it will work.

 

In my view what we cant expect is that whenever the WS is conducting business, they keep issuing updates every time someone has a question. If members are not happy with what is happening then it is when the election of officials take place that they should try and implement changes. Leave the guys to get on with moving the club forward.

 

 

 

[Lobey_Dosser]

Are we looking at the likes of Andrew Wilson departing the board?

[Suprawell]

No you have not,

 

and sadly rather than looking in to whats happening and more importantly the changes occuring, you and some others seem intent on trying to publicly destroy the very essence of whats been built and belittle what has been done or choose to ignore it completely.

 

 

another £100k short term loan has just been transferred from the society funds to the club and that keeps the club trading , that is the society 'Working' the club could not trade without that capital.

 

sure there have been mistakes, most crititcally by the club not trading on a realistic budget after the Rangers Fiasco played out, and my personal moan that the communication outwith society meeting has been almost non existant, if you go to meetings and participate all the answers and the troubles are there to be seen and explain a lot.

 

but when you have less than ten? volunteers, working on a project, and the goals are frequently changing, but they still raise what around £6-700k and in a recession like one not seen for many decades from a community with a core support of around 3500 then I'd say they are doing pretty well particularly when the almighty Dempster and Boyle have forced the situation and plunged the 'club' into a crisis situation, which the society and the club management have doen tremendously well to get to this point out off.

 

 

All the digs about coffers running dry? thats the club, not the society, its essentially bad management or a difficult trading situation dependant on how you look at it, the Rangers fiasco hit hard but in reality the reaction to it was not strong enough, the society has it funds and is using them exactly as was designed, its not donating money to the club that dissapears, its supporting the club, through these very tough times.

 

I think there are flaws, but admire how much effort has been put in to secure the future of the club but also to fundraise outwith the memberships from a very cynical support base, that wishes for far more than is available and sometimes does not appreciate the gravity of the situation or at very least offer alternatives, if they do not think something is the best option for the longer term.

 

or to put it simply, the Society and the Club are on the brink of signing a 0% loan for 5 years to stabilise the club, what is the other option that is a.) better value or b.) available in your wee world?

 

 

EDIT: in response to the traveller , the Society did raise the £800k but then Boyle pulled a nasty and upped the goal, take of that what you will

 

double EDIT: and while im on it, remember Boyle writing off his debt, servicing 'his loan' payments over the last decade would have covered much of the losses

 

Thanks for the sly dig on my "wee world"... I am not in favour of the club bleeding the fans dry year on year whilst running at a loss. We should have been concentrating our efforts on securing addition revenue streams from business and supporters in other ways and the lack of business acumen running through the club has been very apparent.

 

The luxury of going to the well society for another hand out is negating the imperative for fresh thinking. Any other business has to be creative when times are hard and doesn't have it's customer creating a financial safety net to bail it out.

 

It's clear we need proper governance and a structured board in place and hopefully we will see decent commercial management put in place to move the club forward. I'd like to see a Chief Executive figure appointed to support Flow in his day to day job and act as a figurehead for the club. We don't have a chairman or chief executive which has been a glaring omission I feel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[weeyin]

In my view what we cant expect is that whenever the WS is conducting business, they keep issuing updates every time someone has a question. If members are not happy with what is happening then it is when the election of officials take place that they should try and implement changes. Leave the guys to get on with moving the club forward.

 

I agree they shouldn't be responding to every individual question on a daily basis, but if it's true, for example, that our new benefactor is choosing who to put on the WS Board, the members should be given the chance to review, comment and if they want to, vote against that option.

 

I wouldn't expect many to object, but if the WS ends up doing things behind our backs without any consultation and without requiring consent of the members then we might as well just scrap members' voting rights.

 

I'd at least expect something along the lines of "Here's the conditions of the loan, it's our only realistic opportunity to buy the shares for the society, the vote to approve will take place on Friday" - or whatever.

 

I'm sure I'd vote yes, but I'd like the right to vote. It's bad enough that the Society excludes non-local members from participating the their meetings - we should at least be participating in something as significant as this.

[WellSoc]

am working all day today so don't have much time but just to clear up some confusion:

 

Les will be in control of club board appointments, but Well Society chairperson will be chairperson of the club board - that's why he says on BBC that he's asked Brian McCafferty to be chairman. He has asked Derek Weir and Jim McMahon to stay on the board. His daughter - a committed Well fan and accountant - will also join the board. He might put others on the club board who he feels can help the club generate income and add efficiencies. he says they will all be unpaid.

 

The Well Society board is a matter for the Well Society, the rules are pretty clear on the make-up - elections to choose up to four board members and to co-opt others but always have a majority of elected members.

 

Les has done another interview with the Press Association, some of which should be out in a story on several media platforms and maybe the club website very soon if not already - it was a 25-min interview and the whole transcription will be on the well society website in the coming days, as well as on other platforms, the more press coverage we can get the better as not everyone reads the well society website.

 

Brian will also have a lengthy message to Well Society members in the coming days on the website explaining how we got to this stage and as much detail as possible

 

sorry for the brief update, I have been working all weekend so been difficult to keep up - Les was keen to get his point across asap so that's why he spoke to BBC, allows everyone to hear him too

 

will be back on here consistently too to see if there's any other points that need clarified, but might struggle for time today

[stuwell]

WelLSoc, thanks for the update.

[Goggles & Flippers]

Firstly thanks to the Society, even more so for posting on the hoof. However its something that should have been drafted well in advance of the announcement on Les' involvement and posted with the green light. There's been a lot of Chinese whispers and conjecture, it could have been avoided with a bit of forethought. Seems to be a recurring issue.

 

It's clear we need proper governance and a structured board in place and hopefully we will see decent commercial management put in place to move the club forward. I'd like to see a Chief Executive figure appointed to support Flow in his day to day job and act as a figurehead for the club. We don't have a chairman or chief executive which has been a glaring omission I feel.

 

Secondly, when we're broke and looking to cut our cloth, adding another level of management seems contradictory to this. What would someone with Chief Exec on their office door do differently from a General Manager? What would you suggest they do in addition to what Flow does presently?

 

Third, Les has injected his cash and appears to be making decisions like a de-facto owner, making appointments and asking others to step down. Now as he's done so with a large chunk of his personal cash you could argue he's entitled to, however £500,000 or so of the £1,500,000 JB asked for to transfer his shareholding was contributed by 1,000 WS members. Strategic and tactical decisions are being made without our input. I'm no way advocating straw polls on every issue, we have to trust the elected board will look after the greater good for the membership they represent. If you don't agree with that direction then garner support and get on the board yourself.

 

The talking point I wish to make is based on the above those who have contributed more have more influence on where the club heads. Does that mean that going forward those who contributed £1k, £5k, and £25k (opposed to the majority who opted for £300), should have more of a say as a precedent has been set, or is it if you contribute such a large amount then you are exempt, a white knight clause.

[superward]

I think it's a great way forward and effectively a second chance to show we can create a fan ownership model that will work. I, for one, had stopped paying my £10 a month but I have set it up again as I have more confidence in this succeeding.

 

I can understand some people being nervous due to no official comment detailing exactly how this will work. But, the way I am reading it from the interviews with Hutchison/comments from WellSoc on here:

 

* Well Society currently have 2 places on the board and a 6% shareholding. There will be no immediate change to this following completion of the deal with Les Hutchison.

 

* The original plan was to have the Well Society raise enough money for Boyle's shares to be bought which would have given the Well Society a 70% and controlling stake in the club.

 

*There was not enough Well Society cash to buy those controlling shares by the November deadline.

 

*A different deal is being done with Les Hutchison that basically installs him as owner but it is on the proviso to facilitate fan ownership over a longer period of time.

 

* Les Hutchison will be coming in and buying the majority shares in the club from Boyle (64%?) but on the proviso that whatever value he buys them for will be paid back by the Well Society over a maximum 5 year period. At that point the Well Society will be the majority shareholder in the club. He would then walk away from having any control of the club.

 

So, in the mean time:

*The Well Society will not 'own' the club or have a majority say. They will still have a 6% ownership.

*Les Hutchison will effectively own the club - not the Well Society. He can set up the board however he wants. So, noting changes in the Well Society - it's still 1 vote for 1 person no matter what you put in. Les isn't putting into the Well Society. He is putting in to the club.

* He clearly wants the fan ownership to work and to that end has appointed a Well Society rep to chair the club board and is bringing in a few of his own people to sit on that board and offer their expertise on anything and everything club related to ensure we have the correct business plan to get us through the next 5 years, pass ownership to the society and be self sufficient.

 

That is how I see it anyway.

 

Questions:

*Is the above correct?

 

*Do the Well Society gradually gain more shares and control as the loan is paid back? Or does it have to be a total payback before controlling shares are passed?

*What needs to happen in the Well Society setup, subscription fees and rules for Les's plans to be worked through? What do we need to vote for for it to change etc?

[the traveller]

It will be the club not the Well Society who will repay Mr Hutchinson his money back. The press release states in relation to transfering the club to the fans that it will happen " provided there is clear evidence that more of the fan base is willing to support the initiative". If the Well Society was paying the money back then the transfer of the shares would surely be automatic and not subject to the foregoing provisio.

Effectively the Well Society will have another 5 years to accumulate sufficient monies to demonstrate that they can properly fund the running of the club which to date unfortunately they have been unable to do. There is no guarantee that such a transfer will take place in the future.

[superward]

That's not what I take from the interview transcripts.

 

How can he loan money to the club which in turn gives him ownership/majority shareholding immediately, for the club then to pay him the money back over 5 years? Effectively After 5 years he would still have a a majority shareholding and ownership, all his money back and then be able to sell the club again because he still has all his shares.....unless on the agreement of the loan being paid in full the shares are gifted back to the club or society no mater what and he walks away....

[Spiderpig]

Sorry to be the prophet of doom but the WS could not make their predicted targets before the deal with Hutchison was done..we just dont have the fan base to make the WS work long term. Just about everybody who wants to join already has, where are the extra fans needed going to come from, i cant see this changing anytime soon.

[Andy_P]

Sorry to be the prophet of doom but the WS could not make their predicted targets before the deal with Hutchison was done..we just dont have the fan base to make the WS work long term. Just about everybody who wants to join already has, where are the extra fans needed going to come from, i cant see this changing anytime soon.

But that doesn't take account of the fact that with the additional time and security offered by the Hutchison deal that people who already have contributed might be inspired to contribute further. Or businesses or organisations might be in a better position financially to get involved now than they initially were a year or two back. Or indeed that the WS up their game and draw income from activities not directly related to contributions from members.

 

 

 

 

[superward]

Sorry to be the prophet of doom but the WS could not make their predicted targets before the deal with Hutchison was done..we just dont have the fan base to make the WS work long term. Just about everybody who wants to join already has, where are the extra fans needed going to come from, i cant see this changing anytime soon.

 

I will offer myself as a good example.

 

I didn't want to join at £300 a pop or even split over 4 payments. The 'benefits' were never a selling point for me. But an online method that I can sign up to at £10 a month? That made me join. There will be other reasons people aren't joining and its up to the Society to find them...be that price, benefits, communication, engagement, overall end game.

 

I share a small amount of doubt also but I do think there is a decent chance.

[underboyleheating]

Or indeed that the WS up their game and draw income from activities not directly related to contributions from members.

This could potentially produce a valuable revenue stream.

[David]

Sorry to be the prophet of doom but the WS could not make their predicted targets before the deal with Hutchison was done..we just dont have the fan base to make the WS work long term. Just about everybody who wants to join already has, where are the extra fans needed going to come from, i cant see this changing anytime soon.

 

I remember people saying the same thing when the idea of a wealthy investor was touted as a short-term solution. "There's no one out there willing to invest, they would have appeared on the scene long before now" and so on.

 

Circumstances can change over time, and we really have no idea of knowing what state the club or even Scottish football will be in after the five year period.

[weeyin]

I'm still amazed that the critics don't understand how the WS has provided much needed finance to the club each year since its inception. If nothing else, that has made it invaluable.

[WellSoc]

I'll come back on tomorrow or Thursday to answer all these questions (or as many as I can) but spending tonight typing up the rest of the Les Hutchison interview and also helping finish off the first part of a very lengthy message from Brian McCafferty, who has been working on that today. Both should be on the Well Society website tomorrow and we'll flag them up on twitter/facebook when they go up. There will be other parts of the message to come, this one focuses on the deal and how we got there and future part(s) will focus on what has happened with the Well Society so far and where we go from here.

Hopefully the statements answer the above questions anyway but if not then I will address them.

Briefly, on the subject of not having the forethought to prepare these, the focus and hard work was all on getting a deal sufficiently over the line to be able to release a statement, which initially said a bit more but had to be cut down slightly as part of the agreement on getting it out. There were a huge amount of twists and turns in this saga, and a host of different parties involved, so it was difficult to prepare anything in advance.

[SuperCC]

But that doesn't take account of the fact that with the additional time and security offered by the Hutchison deal that people who already have contributed might be inspired to contribute further. Or businesses or organisations might be in a better position financially to get involved now than they initially were a year or two back. Or indeed that the WS up their game and draw income from activities not directly related to contributions from members.

 

 

 

 

 

I still havent bought into the WS yet and initially it was down to a lack of believe and confidence in the idea but also a shortage of cash but things change and the cash situation has improved! I probably will be tempted over the next 12 months and I'm sure there are many others like me and I'd love to see an interesting benefits package launched that caters for fans that no longer live in Scotland.

 

 

 

[Suprawell]

Firstly thanks to the Society, even more so for posting on the hoof. However its something that should have been drafted well in advance of the announcement on Les' involvement and posted with the green light. There's been a lot of Chinese whispers and conjecture, it could have been avoided with a bit of forethought. Seems to be a recurring issue.

 

 

 

Secondly, when we're broke and looking to cut our cloth, adding another level of management seems contradictory to this. What would someone with Chief Exec on their office door do differently from a General Manager? What would you suggest they do in addition to what Flow does presently?

 

Third, Les has injected his cash and appears to be making decisions like a de-facto owner, making appointments and asking others to step down. Now as he's done so with a large chunk of his personal cash you could argue he's entitled to, however £500,000 or so of the £1,500,000 JB asked for to transfer his shareholding was contributed by 1,000 WS members. Strategic and tactical decisions are being made without our input. I'm no way advocating straw polls on every issue, we have to trust the elected board will look after the greater good for the membership they represent. If you don't agree with that direction then garner support and get on the board yourself.

 

The talking point I wish to make is based on the above those who have contributed more have more influence on where the club heads. Does that mean that going forward those who contributed £1k, £5k, and £25k (opposed to the majority who opted for £300), should have more of a say as a precedent has been set, or is it if you contribute such a large amount then you are exempt, a white knight clause.

 

I was advocating bringing someone in on a reduced wage, say someone who is retired and no longer needs to draw on expensive costs, perhaps more of a figurehead who can lead the club and doesn't have to be there 5 days a week. Someone who can provide the General Manager with some guidance and be a sounding board, a trusted advisor and who can leverage much needed experience into the Football Club, that's what I suggest.

 

 

 

[superward]

I was advocating bringing someone in on a reduced wage, say someone who is retired and no longer needs to draw on expensive costs, perhaps more of a figurehead who can lead the club and doesn't have to be there 5 days a week. Someone who can provide the General Manager with some guidance and be a sounding board, a trusted advisor and who can leverage much needed experience into the Football Club, that's what I suggest.

 

 

 

 

Very similar to Jim McMahon and Derek Weir then I'd say currently. However, I think that gap has been realised already and I am confident the remaining board members and the new board members Hutchison will bring in will be that guidance, sounding board and advisor. That guidance and advisory starts with Hutchison working through a new business plan with the general manager in Barbados as we speak.

[delboy]

the WS is the best way forward for Motherwell FC and everyone involved in the club, WS, John Boyle and Les Hutchinson want it to work

 

£10 per month (that's less than 33p a day or £2.30ish per week about the price of pie at Fir Park) to be part of the club you support?

 

what is stopping you?

 

Some many people seem too keen looking for reasons not to join, want to rubbish the WS or think people are going to rip them off

 

what is the alternative?

 

if anyone can tell me a better way for Motherwell to be run and to insure it's future then I am all ears

 

Time to get off the fence come out from behind the pie stand and stand up and be counted and join the WS

 

the more people who join the stronger the club will be and they stronger the WS will be

 

If you don't want to join fine but don't knock those who do, the club or the WS

 

if you have questions fine but no one from the club or the WS is going to lie to you (why would they?)

 

and if you only support a club when it wins then your missing the point, this isn't about winning football matches this is about running the club in a way that will mean it will still be going in 100 years time and if the clubs wins a few game along the way that a bouns.