Jump to content

The Well Society


stuwell
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ying and Yang, I'm just tried of the constant reactive press releases opposed to proactive ones. This statement from Les is borne out of a growing rumble of dissatisfaction from the support in how we are informed. Of course any info is welcome but the nature of how we find out is getting really tiresome.

 

The WS board's remit is to represent the general fan base however repeatedly inept at engaging and keeping their fellow members (let me emphasise "fellow" - they aren't above any of us who have contributed in a one member one vote constitution, they merely secured the vote of 20 or so other guys who sit in the POD stand and attend meetings, sadly that fact seems to have been lost).

 

I got this email on the 20th of October (that's 13 days ago, which will become relevant)

 

 

 

'WELL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP 'BENEFITS BONUS SCHEME'

As a big thank you and reward for their loyalty and forbearance throughout the past months, the society board, in collaboration with MFC, has agreed to provide additional 'bonus' benefits for all members.

The first of these will be announced this week by Keith Campbell, head of MFC marketing and commercial.

Don't miss out!

Well Society Board'

 

Still nothing, despite what you imagine is a October 27th deadline, a poor track record, plenty of criticism, they issue this and still can't deliver.

 

When will anyone take responsibility for this repeated failing and fall on their sword?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EMAIL received 20 October

 

I refer to your e-mail sent previously to The Society and to Brian out Chairman.
Firstly my apologies for the delay.
I was in Canada for almost 3 weeks and then was in Portugal following my second team so I am only now beginning to catch up. And it has been left to me to pass appropriate details on to you.
If you could pass on to me your home or mobile phone numbers , I will arrange to give you a call. I think that doing so and having a chat would be a better way of updating you.

 

 

EMAIL received 28 October

 

Apologies for the wee delay in getting back to you.
I was holding of until our Board meeting had been held on Monday and I also knew that I had received an invitation to attend the Club Board meeting held after ours.
The bottom line is that it is now accepted by all that we should be allowed to provide more information to our members. Previously the Club had regarded some details as being confidential and commercially sensitive.
I will phone you later today for a chat and details are being officially released to all shortly.
Speak to you soon.

 

 

Above are copies of 2 EMails I received from Tom Feely of the Well Society. They were in response to several Emails I sent in early October following lengthy discussions on this forum and listed various concerns. The majority of the concerns related to Communication, Finances, the Relationship to Mr Hutchison and the Board's responsibility to Members.

 

Despite the promises made, I have received no phone call from Mr Feely although I do acknowledge that a Members' meeting has now been arranged for this month. Hopefully The Society will be permitted (by Mr Hutchison?) to share some meaningful information. A firm indication as to when up to date Financial Accounts will be made available to Members and some clarification regarding the ownership of the debt to Mr Hutchison would be a good start.

 

Goggles & Flippers is spot on....Communication has been woeful and the secrecy evident would put the Masonic Brotherhood to shame. You could almost believe that the Society is not allowed to make a move without the approval of Mr Hutchison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come you guys are getting special treatment and getting personal emails. Fire your money in, it will all be good. Tom Feely is a good guy, his son ran a bus that got to where it was going. I don't expect to be running the club any time soon but I am happy to help create a fund that they can lean on from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean I might not be welcomed with open arms at the forthcoming "let's reveal all" get together. Joking aside, I was actually quite encouraged when Tom Feely (Accountant) eventually got in touch saying he was happy to discuss the situation and had Board permission to share information. Was hoping for a good, constructive chat which would maybe allay the fears I have about the governance of the Society and lack of routine information being made available. Alas, my optimism was misplaced.

 

Re the meeting. Could it not have been arranged to take place after a Home game making it more likely that fans who have to travel a fair distance might attend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come you guys are getting special treatment and getting personal emails. Fire your money in, it will all be good. Tom Feely is a good guy, his son ran a bus that got to where it was going. I don't expect to be running the club any time soon but I am happy to help create a fund that they can lean on from time to time.

In a reply to concerns being raised on this Forum, someone from the Society came on and suggested that anyone could put concerns in writing to the Society and someone would be happy to respond. Not special treatment, just following their suggestion.

 

And I have already fired money in. Before I fire any more in, I would like to know that it's not going straight out again. To be clear, I have doubts that it is actually building up a Contingeancy Fund for use further down the line or that that is even still the intention. All I read is that we...The Society... have to pay off Mr Hutchison.

 

It took 3 Emails before I got the first response from Tom Feely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the small print but I assume the office bearers are up for renewal at some point and those that have a strong voice and want to have a say can put themselves forward. I will vote for someone who makes a strong commitment to represent the fans. The WS cannot be puppets of the club but they must work to a common goal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What are Mr Hutchisons motives, did the multi millionaire tax exile who has never been near Lanarkshire in years invest because of his good community spirit and wanting to help the local area, or did he smell an investment opportunity with a decent return on his cash if he is getting one, but you don't become a millionaire by giving cash away so he must be getting something fro the deal.

I am not saying he is wrong and the club did need the cash but it only re-enforces the point that for clubs to be stable financially they need an owner/investor to put up some cash, hopefully for a return on their investment as was the case with Fergus McCann at Celtic, Community / Fan ownership is a nice idea but for a club the size of ours its not viable, we need a Hutchison, or a Boyle or a Chapman to put some cash into the club, not ordinary fans contributing £60 a year at the new £5/month rate.

Yes, it's all part of a cunning plan , giving the club an interest free loan over 5years and asking for his money back.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the small print but I assume the office bearers are up for renewal at some point and those that have a strong voice and want to have a say can put themselves forward. I will vote for someone who makes a strong commitment to represent the fans. The WS cannot be puppets of the club but they must work to a common goal.

 

When two positions on the Board became vacant several months ago, I understand someone who contributes regularly to this Forum contacted the Chairman to discuss taking up one of the positions. I am told the answer was " You can apply if you wish, but we have already identified the replacements". I have no proof of course, but I have no reason to doubt that what I was told is true. Just adds to the nagging doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Opposed to giving an endorsement to someone who's son organised a vehicle getting from A to B? Ideal, glad to see there are other strings to someone's bow before they get your vote.

There is a cornucopia of criteria to be considered. A veritable smorgasbord of opinion. But there are probably few of us died in the wool fans willing to give up our time for the cause. I have spoken to Tom possibly one time but would like to think he is 'one of us'. I also understand how you can get sucked into a process and 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' it can be difficult to achieve what you set out to achieve. I am not yet disenchanted with the WS but perhaps I am more tolerant than most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When two positions on the Board became vacant several months ago, I understand someone who contributes regularly to this Forum contacted the Chairman to discuss taking up one of the positions. I am told the answer was " You can apply if you wish, but we have already identified the replacements". I have no proof of course, but I have no reason to doubt that what I was told is true. Just adds to the nagging doubts.

That doesn't sound right unless the gaps were due to people withdrawing their service rather than completing their term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least two people have stood down recently "for personal reasons". Was announced on the Web Site so no secret. I assume Office Bearers who wish to continue have to be re-elected at the AGM.

 

Just read the blurb again about the meeting in November. Given that it's a shared platform, I'm not so sure how much time or opportunity there will be for in depth questioning. Whether that's by design I do not know. I intend to send in a few questions and hopefully can get through to Motherwell to see if they get brought up. It's a pity we are not having a Q&A devoted solely to the Society as they really do need to clarify matters to be able to push on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a cornucopia of criteria to be considered. A veritable smorgasbord of opinion. But there are probably few of us died in the wool fans willing to give up our time for the cause. I have spoken to Tom possibly one time but would like to think he is 'one of us'. I also understand how you can get sucked into a process and 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' it can be difficult to achieve what you set out to achieve. I am not yet disenchanted with the WS but perhaps I am more tolerant than most.

 

I don't think any of those who have put themselves forward could be considered anything other than Motherwell fans. However there has to be a distinction between nice people and those able and capable of delivering the duties of their post. Unfortunately time after time we've seen promises broken and it just reeks of amateurism. How many instances does it take before someone takes control of this. Everything they do seems to be a bit of a cockup.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think any of those who have put themselves forward could be considered anything other than Motherwell fans. However there has to be a distinction between nice people and those able and capable of delivering the duties of their post. Unfortunately time after time we've seen promises broken and it just reeks of amateurism. How many instances does it take before someone takes control of this. Everything they do seems to be a bit of a cockup.

Who is the 'someone'.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the blurb again about the meeting in November. Given that it's a shared platform, I'm not so sure how much time or opportunity there will be for in depth questioning. Whether that's by design I do not know. I intend to send in a few questions and hopefully can get through to Motherwell to see if they get brought up. It's a pity we are not having a Q&A devoted solely to the Society as they really do need to clarify matters to be able to push on

I get it that you have an axe to grind with the Society; so be it. However, do you have any evidence that the organisers are deliberately trying to stifle and subdue discussion? Its quite possible that in order to make the event more attractive, a Q & A session with Mark McGhee has been added on. To be blunt I don't envy the Chairman's job on the night. There may well be more questions than the time available permits and some may have to lose out. In that event I'd imagine questions that have been submitted/asked by several people may be chosen. In my view, if there is insufficient time to take all questions then questioners should be limited to one question each, with "multiple" questions being ruled out of order. Verbal questions should also be kept short and be real questions and not an opportunity for the more articulate questioner to make a speech and play to the gallery. Again the Chairman runs the risk of being criticised by sceptical fans of ignoring awkward questions.

 

I sincerely hope that there is time for every question to be asked including all of yours, but don't be surprised or offended if there isn't. However, in my experience if someone looks for something they will always find it. I agree though that a fair number of questions need to be asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it that you have an axe to grind with the Society; so be it. However, do you have any evidence that the organisers are deliberately trying to stifle and subdue discussion? Its quite possible that in order to make the event more attractive, a Q & A session with Mark McGhee has been added on. To be blunt I don't envy the Chairman's job on the night. There may well be more questions than the time available permits and some may have to lose out. In that event I'd imagine questions that have been submitted/asked by several people may be chosen. In my view, if there is insufficient time to take all questions then questioners should be limited to one question each, with "multiple" questions being ruled out of order. Verbal questions should also be kept short and be real questions and not an opportunity for the more articulate questioner to make a speech and play to the gallery. Again the Chairman runs the risk of being criticised by sceptical fans of ignoring awkward questions.

 

I sincerely hope that there is time for every question to be asked including all of yours, but don't be surprised or offended if there isn't. However, in my experience if someone looks for something they will always find it. I agree though that a fair number of questions need to be asked.

Evidence? Not only contained in this thread, but, anybody at the last ever Well Society meeting open to all it was there to see. For 'confidentiality clause' read 'Les has his hand so far up my arse you can call me Orville'.

 

Not a penny more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it that you have an axe to grind with the Society; so be it. However, do you have any evidence that the organisers are deliberately trying to stifle and subdue discussion?

 

Does he though, he's asked legitimate questions which have been both ignored and promises to discuss have been broken. Bear in mind these postholders on the WS Board are there to represent the interests of the general WS membership. They've contributed at least £300 each the same as us, somehow the link between them and us has widened. If a fellow member asks for clarification, then voices his disappointment on here, he's got an "axe to grind" .... oh come on.

 

The only reason we know half the stuff we do is because a number of members have kicked off, raised concerns and forced the WS, faced with increasing poor publicity, to reveal details. It's not because they either wanted to or felt they had to. If it wasn't for th eaxe grinders of this world then ask yourself how much do you honestly think we'd know.

 

I don't think they are trying to stifle and subdue discussion, however I do think they've "stifled" information dissemination and not adequately furnished the WS membership with a full and frank outline of agreements they've entered into. Remember this is a deal that is key to their future strategy, done without ANY consultation. As for "subduing" I think they'd prefer it if they could continue to scheme without having to placate and deal with any concerned fans. And yes I use the word "scheme" as no other feels right.

 

Say what you like about Barnstaple, at least he got 5% of the club for a fund transfer. We've now been signed up where our £500k slush fund is secured against Les' loan.

 

Who is the 'someone'.?

 

I would say any board member who is constantly being embarrassed by association and the failings, who is going to say OK, I'll manage this going forward and be responsible for communications being released as promised.

 

I also echo "not a penny more"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...