The Well Society

[Yabba's Turd]

my own opinion now:

 

its clear that far too many of our support do not realise the critical situation at our club moving forward

Or just simply can't afford to contribute more than paying at the gate.

[Lobey_Dosser]

Many fans are acutely aware of the severity of the situation but have been realistic enough from day one to recognise that we don't have enough fans to facilitate a sustainable future via the Well Society model.

[Frazzie]

I think a major balls-up from the Society is that the annual fee (£50 for me, more for the higher levels) does not need to be paid to retain your membership (and vote), but is only to activate the "benefits". I am fairly certain that the vast majority of members did not sign up to receive anything, and I genuinely couldn't tell you what the benefits are, but I've paid my £50 for this year anyway. I may not bother in future.

[steelboy]

I think a major balls-up from the Society is that the annual fee (£50 for me, more for the higher levels) does not need to be paid to retain your membership (and vote), but is only to activate the "benefits". I am fairly certain that the vast majority of members did not sign up to receive anything, and I genuinely couldn't tell you what the benefits are, but I've paid my £50 for this year anyway. I may not bother in future.

 

the majority of the 50 quid doesn't even end up with the society. If you take the season ticket discount that takes up the majority of the 50 quid and i'd guess other benefits and admin eats up the rest.

 

The society has to have a viable future as no one else is putting any money into the club. The options are trustees who invest nothing or the society who invest something. The society model is obviously better.

[Welldaft Mk1]

Many fans are acutely aware of the severity of the situation but have been realistic enough from day one to recognise that we don't have enough fans to facilitate a sustainable future via the Well Society model.

 

^^THIS^^

 

It was a good idea and was I believe marketed very well. I have done my bit and continue to do so, but....

 

I never ever thought raising £1.5m was ever likely to happen for 2 reasons:

 

1. Launched in the midst of a recession and that would affect both individual and corporate membership

2. The club were not is a similar state to the likes of Rangers and Hearts

 

I hope many fans continue to join up and those who have joined pay their annual subs but to expect £1.5m was being optimistic. I think we only have 1 member who has paid for the £25k package when the club originally hoped for up to 20!!

 

I don't know what was said last night and note with interest Brazilian comments about how critical things are or could become. Whilst we are not awash with money and the cup exits will have a large impact I would have thought we are struggling to break even and need to adjust budget to respond to cup exit. Problem is there is never any guarantee we get more than 1 round in each cup competition so why (I am surmising) should we budget for so.

 

I fully accept this impacts quality on the pitch - but we should budget for 10th place and out of cups early on.. I know there are other factors to consider, ground improvements and maintanence, corporate hospitality, lack of SPFL sponsor etc...but average home crowds are marginally up from this time last season. We also got a home Euro game and the money for finishing 2nd in the SPL which as stated is a hell of a lot more than St Mirren and the likes...

 

 

 

 

 

[Bop]

Its still the lump sum up front that prevents me from joining. If you could pay in 12 monthly installments i'd join today.

[Onthefringes]

Its still the lump sum up front that prevents me from joining. If you could pay in 12 monthly installments i'd join today.

No it isn't m'lad... Speak to Alison at the club.

[Dee]

For me it's absolutely baffling that people still believe this myth that we are too small a club to have a successful fan ownership model.

 

If its possible for clubs with similar sized fan bases such as FC United of Manchester, Exeter, Wycombe Wanderers, Wimbledon, Derry City & many more then why at Motherwell would that be any different? You've also got all the clubs in the Bundesliga 2 & 3 with a similar sized fanbase to MFC.

 

Fan ownership works for clubs, in all sports, regardless if they are a Barcelona or a Bellshill Athletic.

 

If people want to question the proposed model & suggest alternatives then fair enough as this is a discussion board but to say MFC don't have a big enough fanbase is just silly. Yes it may take time to build up financies but its not impossible.

[milo]

Folks wives no letting them spend the money is the biggest reason I know for folk no joining.

[Goggles & Flippers]

From what I could gather last night and I'm going to be a little critical here, the current benefit based system results in the society giving the club around £40k a year to cover the shortfall the club makes in giving money off season tickets primarily. That pretty much takes into account most/all of the renewal subscriptions.

 

Consequently the £407k raised so far will only grow from increasing the membership base as things stand.

 

A second proposal was given where if the system was changed to having no benefits however you would gain essentially one annual lottery ticket for every £300 or so you had contributed (The Amber £5k members would get 15) for a major prize (a car was given as an example) then £75k a year could be raised and kept within the society and no doubt growing the pot.

 

That £75k figure seemed to be based on the current subscriptions plus subs from the 25% of people who indicated they would join from the questionnaire if it was made easier in terms of paying up their joining fee over time. There didn't seem to be any account for any of the prizes to be purchased for the annual draw (£10k for a car and £5 in ancillary prizes?). For me was flawed and inappropriate to present with the aim to vote.

 

It was laid out the current system was unsustainable, then we were asked to vote if we'd like to keep that or this option 2. I'm reminded of the Eddie Izzard "Cake or Death" sketch. I don't know what they were hoping to achieve but all it did was make me shake my head at how amateur it came across.

 

I understand its not best to pursue new members when the structure of the scheme is under investigation to change it however I think exploring cost effective ways to pay for a membership should have been fully examined before looking to change the structure.

It's been covered before in other threads if we grew out home attendance by 1,200 a game approximately then we would pretty much break even in an average season. Yet again anything associated with this club tends to go for the easy option in pumping those already involved for more money (an example was given where a member was called and asked to increase his membership level) rather than go to increase membership from the harder people who have drifted however have affection and an affinity for Motherwell.

 

I for one signed up to a scheme to buy the club with benefits. I love the club but I don't have bottomless pockets and my generosity only goes so far. It is a business after all.

 

I'd implore the board to spend their time getting another 900 members from those who already go every week and we're on £800k, 600 lapsed Well fans is another £250k and we're over £1m and on our way.

[Lobey_Dosser]

For me it's absolutely baffling that people still believe this myth that we are too small a club to have a successful fan ownership model.

 

If its possible for clubs with similar sized fan bases such as FC United of Manchester, Exeter, Wycombe Wanderers, Wimbledon, Derry City & many more then why at Motherwell would that be any different? You've also got all the clubs in the Bundesliga 2 & 3 with a similar sized fanbase to MFC.

 

Fan ownership works for clubs, in all sports, regardless if they are a Barcelona or a Bellshill Athletic.

 

If people want to question the proposed model & suggest alternatives then fair enough as this is a discussion board but to say MFC don't have a big enough fanbase is just silly. Yes it may take time to build up financies but its not impossible.

 

I don't know what the numbers are at the other clubs but £1.5mil for a club that has 3,000 ST holders doesn't stack up. We needed local businesses putting in around 500k to have a chance of the society building momentum and working towards its ambitious goal.

 

And even if the money was raised, what would happen if it were to gradually disappear over the next 5-10 years?

[Brazilian]

I might have been sitting right next to you, but I struggle to understand how some key points can be lost between two members at the same meeting.

 

I took notes through the first hour or so, and was just typing them up to share with the Steelmenonline society membership contributors, when you posted.

 

I'm going to add some comments to your post, as what I took from the meeting, not as criticism of yourself but to show that whilst some points were taken similarly other were quite different, a measure of those talking or listening, I don't know? perhaps its just a reflection of how many times any individual sits through the meetings

 

From what I could gather last night and I'm going to be a little critical here, the current benefit based system results in the society giving the club around £40k a year to cover the shortfall the club makes in giving money off season tickets primarily. That pretty much takes into account most/all of the renewal subscriptions.

I have been aware for quite some time the annual payment by society members goes to the club for supplying the benefits, hence I never paid it. the main point I take like you is that the Society benefits in no way what so ever from these payments made by fans, the additional point last night was that , it is going to start costing the club to provide these benefits on the current fees, LD pointed out the significant cost to the club is the ST discount amongst others

 

 

Consequently the £407k raised so far will only grow from increasing the membership base as things stand. , agreed, but not consequently as such , just that this has always been the case , as the annual subs are purely to pay the club for providing benefits, no money remains in the society from those subs' PS were all members not emailed(not called) to consider increasing to next level, I thought it was standard mailing, don't agree with it, like yourself, as I believe the increments are too high, always have

 

A second proposal was given where if the system was changed to having no benefits however you would gain essentially one annual lottery ticket for every £300 or so you had contributed (The Amber £5k members would get 15) for a major prize (a car was given as an example) then £75k a year could be raised and kept within the society and no doubt growing the pot.

Quite a bit of details built up to this point, significant work carried out by the society in year to date, listing memberships gains and work completed etc. but yes it was proposed that, as founding members, would we consider moving away from the annual sub for benefits, to a monthly direct debit payments scheme, to pay an equivalent amount, but the rewards effectively being changed to for example a annual raffle, payments suggested, were roughly speaking a division of 12 of the annual sub:

Change annual fees to direct debit:

£4.17 steel

£12.50 claret

£41.67 amber

Gives £75k per annum income from current membership base

Option to pay more would be encouraged for those that could, please bare in mind that this was proposed after details was given about other clubs who are now going for fan control, and the models the now have

 

That £75k figure seemed to be based on the current subscriptions plus subs from the 25% of people who indicated they would join from the questionnaire if it was made easier in terms of paying up their joining fee over time. There didn't seem to be any account for any of the prizes to be purchased for the annual draw (£10k for a car and £5 in ancillary prizes?). For me was flawed and inappropriate to present with the aim to vote.

£75k was from current members opting in to monthly payments scheme, this significant change alone would vastly improve the standing of the society at this money all goes straight into society wealth, unlike the current annual payments

the change to Direct debits also opens up , the option that any future members get to pay joining fee that way, then switch to lower payments , or indeed explore payments options tha t take longer term, where full membership doesn't apply until a target amount was reached for each member, this would also mean that like founding members , the newer members would then start contributing to funds monthly after completing membership total cost, these numbers are of course forecast , based on survey responses of those that said the would join if payments was easier (25%) and another percentage chunk said likely join, this would mean the monthly divison of annual subs would rise to £180k per annum in future years, optimistic maybe, but many agreed that the principle of society payments going into society funds is the way it should be

 

 

It was laid out the current system was unsustainable, then we were asked to vote if we'd like to keep that or this option 2. I'm reminded of the Eddie Izzard "Cake or Death" sketch. I don't know what they were hoping to achieve but all it did was make me shake my head at how amateur it came across.

in no way was it said to be unsustainable, but it was calculated at current growth it would be 2040 to reach £1.5million, and as a society no one could say if that time frame would support the club when required, this is the main point I disagree with you on, we were only asked to vote on whether the society board should take these proposals forward to discussion with the larger group of members, it was hardly comical in how amateur it was, although I suppose if you picture something like the benny hill tune in your head it would have enhanced the event, I'm grateful that the amateurs ( with their specific skills) do this, as I and others didn't volunteer, this is the point that always annoys me at these events however, the majority in the room voted to allow the board to go to the member base, but as always individual voices forced another 45 minutes discussion and a third ways as you allude to below

 

I understand its not best to pursue new members when the structure of the scheme is under investigation to change it however I think exploring cost effective ways to pay for a membership should have been fully examined before looking to change the structure.

this statement surprises me, that you consider nothing has been done to explore this, Suppose I have been around these meetings and maybe heard comment that wasn't at every session, but its clear that new ways of payment are to be implemented if the members agree, but the glaring point on the back of that is that it will take too long and the annual payments are being lost to the society

 

 

It's been covered before in other threads if we grew out home attendance by 1,200 a game approximately then we would pretty much break even in an average season. Yet again anything associated with this club tends to go for the easy option in pumping those already involved for more money (an example was given where a member was called and asked to increase his membership level) rather than go to increase membership from the harder people who have drifted however have affection and an affinity for Motherwell.

Probably for another thread, as this changes nothing about the goals of the society, sure it would slow down the draw on funds, if the club board didn't spend the additional income hosting a magic show in Vegas that they would deserve

 

I for one signed up to a scheme to buy the club with benefits. I love the club but I don't have bottomless pockets and my generosity only goes so far. It is a business after all.

and that's the crux, every member will consider their own situation, I'd say that most couldn't name the benefits, majority if they could name one would be ST discount, and a significant amount would rather the society grew quicker than save what £20-25 on a book

 

I'd implore the board to spend their time getting another 900 members from those who already go every week and we're on £800k, 600 lapsed Well fans is another £250k and we're over £1m and on our way.

they have spent significant time and effort and in one year gained 120 new members half of which were kids, so no significant boost to the fund, they went and asked those in the support to give them an idea on why they hadn't joined, 887 non-members gave them measured feedback, which meant changing terms, they explored options and looked at best return, changing new member payments terms and switching redirecting on-going payments into society funds was seen as best option, I personally think a couple of minor tweaks would suffice like, using some of the on-going funding to provide rewards would be preferable, but for the life of me , I cannot fathom out why 6 or 7 voices stalled the communication with the wider membership, making the board add an option that could have been added if majority wanted it

 

[Brazilian]

I don't know what the numbers are at the other clubs but £1.5mil for a club that has 3,000 ST holders doesn't stack up. We needed local businesses putting in around 500k to have a chance of the society building momentum and working towards its ambitious goal.

 

And even if the money was raised, what would happen if it were to gradually disappear over the next 5-10 years?

 

some numbers have been put to what other clubs have done:

 

Learn from other clubs.

e.g Direct debit monthly payments with no benefits

Season ticket holders who contribute monthly, purely towards fan ownership

70% at Hearts, average £20 per month

50% at Dunfermline

22% at Motherwell are society members, indicates scope for improvement.

Previous action brought great response, with thanks to club staff for that drive and on-going support

 

they fans, have stood up in the most dire of situations, I was disappointed the St-Mirren 10,000hrs model wasn't available, they pledged enough in monthly payments, to buy the club outright, before it was pulled from them.

 

It's not for everyone off course, but the fact you spend the time on here and around the club, I'd say you were pretty committed, it surprises me that some still think , I'll not bother because of some flaws, everything about Scottish football has flaws, I'm keen that when things improve, I want MFC to be standing waiting

 

but your point on £1.5 million from 3000 fans, your right it'll be tough, but any amount raised effectively is the clubs security net for tough times

 

the switch to , longer term payment for membership say £25pm for a steel membership

 

might bring another 600 members, £180k, so grows capital to around £600k that year, and at £4.17 pm thereafter would bring in around £6k a month if all contributed.

add in 100 Claret members another £100k, and you have £700k, but importantly £7000 a month going to the right place, might be achievable in ten years? (EDIT ten years was my guesstimate, the club security fund, would be substantial long before that, if members continues to join, that estimate comes down with every contribution)

 

I only see that as a benefit over the current plan, so I'm for it, if they can get the message out

[steelboy]

no one is going to put money in when you talk about seeing results in ten years time. It's too far down the road plus there is always the chance that weir, dempster and the rest of the trustees will spend the money at some point to finance their loss making stewardship.

 

Unless the people running the society make achieving fan ownership as soon as possible the primary goal it wither away. Until i think they are actually doing that i won't be putting in another penny.

[Frazzie]

Sorry if I'm over-simplifying this, but as far as I'm concerned if the 'Well Society want money from people they should make it as flexible as possible to pay.

 

So it's obvious that the £300 membership would cost £25 per month for a year and the £1000 membership would cost £83.33, but what if I could afford more than £25 per month but not £83.33? Why not charge me £36.11 for three years and give me a Steel Membership immediately, then upgrade me to Amber when my Direct Debit is finished? Obviously that's just a quick (and probably flawed) example, but the point remains. Most members don't care about benefits, prize draws or anything else - the £20-£25 won't be the difference between anyone buying a season ticket or not, plus the 'Well Lotto is up and running - people join the 'Well Society to contribute towards safe-guarding the future of our club and want to put in as much as they can manage if they think it's genuinely going to help.

 

I also think the annual fee should be mandatory to keep your membership and not be fed back into the club to fund daft benefits - I can only imagine what this seasons highlights DVD will be like!

[Frazzie]

loss making stewardship.

 

 

I think everyone would agree that the period of their stewardship has been a succesful one on the pitch and this rarely, if ever, comes without some level of investment from the board.

 

There is two different types of football success for a club like ours - cup wins and European qualification. One comes with a guaranteed cash cow, one comes with a potential cash cow/potential loss scenario. Unfortunately for our book-balancers, the success we have had on the field has been of the latter variety and the draws haven't been particularly kind to us once we've got there in terms of maximising our profit.

[Brazilian]

felxible payments is the most valid point Frazzle, and its exactly what they were talking about, it might need clairified in the detail

 

I think you and I are effectively thinking along the same lines that you pay what you can afford and when you reach a total you gain that membership, be it 6 months or longer like 18-24months or beyond effectivly savings for membership with funds into the society right away.

 

Steelboy, thats the initial impact of changing payment structure in year one, estimates show that cuts it from 2040 to around 2024, the new payments structure would hopefully many more to continue to join over the years

 

10 years was my number, on one years improvements, with no continued membership growth, the goal of course is to continue growing membership

 

and importantly ongoing contributions continue to grow the societies capital

 

achieving fan ownership is a primary goal, but getting the funds to do it comes first, at times you dont seem to approve of anything Motherwell related.

 

your choice, start another thread with your blueprint for survival and success

[steelboy]

the 1.5m valuation of the club is a nonsense and the society needs to get the price down.

 

Blindly accepeting the valuation put on the club before the soicety was eveb formed is madness when there is only buyer and the trustees can't afford to run the club on their own.

[numpty]

Sorry if I'm over-simplifying this, but as far as I'm concerned if the 'Well Society want money from people they should make it as flexible as possible to pay.

My recollection from reports from previous Trust meetings is that they already allow every method of payment that allows the funds to go straight to the club. With other instalment-based methods, the financial regulations are such that the money could only be transferred to the Trust upon payment of the final instalment, which is obviously yet another level of bureaucracy for the club to handle that they could do without while getting the thing off the ground at all. But now that it's up and running, I'm sure they're looking into it.

[Brazilian]

My recollection from reports from previous Trust meetings ......

Is all changed with one of the co-opted society board memebrs having done a lot of work looking into Finanacial services regulations

 

they are now wanting to make payments by monthly ongoing direct debits.

 

I'll leave it to the society to tell members and offer new recruits the details , once its agreed with current members

 

Steelboy, the figure might not be your valuation of the club, but even before a value was placed its the same amount that was talked about to have in reserve for difficult trading periods.

 

the ammount that the society aimed for would be the same either way.

 

as I've said lots of small flaws to iron out, but not many choices for those that want an endless options list.

[steelboy]

the initial response was was so succesful because people wanted to get the society off the ground. Now you are asking people to put their hand in their pocket to pay for something that MIGHT happen in ten years. People need to think that their money is making a difference. There will be a good chunk of the society dead in ten years ffs.

 

The sooner we get near the final total the less concern there will be about contributions being wasted either due to the total not beig reached or the trustees currently controlling the club spending the money.

 

I don't think the club as a going concern is worth the valuation they have placed on it and that is surely backed up by the lack of interest in buying it over the past ten years. It was mentioned before that unless the shares are traded for a certain amount boyle gets a tax bill but that's not our problem (and he's dodged enough of them anyway). Lowering the price is the best way of achieving the society's primary objective and if the directors of the society aren't willing to attempt it then they aren't representing the members properly.

[Goggles & Flippers]

From what I could gather last night and I'm going to be a little critical here, the current benefit based system results in the society giving the club around £40k a year to cover the shortfall the club makes in giving money off season tickets primarily. That pretty much takes into account most/all of the renewal subscriptions.I have been aware for quite some time the annual payment by society members goes to the club for supplying the benefits, hence I never paid it. the main point I take like you is that the Society benefits in no way what so ever from these payments made by fans, the additional point last night was that , it is going to start costing the club to provide these benefits on the current fees, LD pointed out the significant cost to the club is the ST discount amongst others

The society in essence wasn't meant to benefit the pot other than nominally from these annual subs, they were designed at the outset to offset some of the loss the club would make in offering the benefits (the main goal being a large membership base making up the £1.5m from their joining fee's). I don't see why you would withhold your sub out of principal, surely if the club get it then it then that is the ultimate goal of supporting the team? However as I understand it, for example, 500 of the current members use their 10% off season ticket entitlement then the club bills the society for 500 x £30 (based on those 500 all sitting in the East for simplicity). If you don't take up that benefit then that cash would stay in the society? No?

 

 

Consequently the £407k raised so far will only grow from increasing the membership base as things stand. , agreed, but not consequently as such , just that this has always been the case , as the annual subs are purely to pay the club for providing benefits, no money remains in the society from those subs' PS were all members not emailed(not called) to consider increasing to next level, I thought it was standard mailing, don't agree with it, like yourself, as I believe the increments are too high, always have

I was sure the member who spoke up said he had been called, I'll hang my head in shame if I'm proven wrong.

 

 

A second proposal was given where if the system was changed to having no benefits however you would gain essentially one annual lottery ticket for every £300 or so you had contributed (The Amber £5k members would get 15) for a major prize (a car was given as an example) then £75k a year could be raised and kept within the society and no doubt growing the pot.

Quite a bit of details built up to this point, significant work carried out by the society in year to date, listing memberships gains and work completed etc. but yes it was proposed that, as founding members, would we consider moving away from the annual sub for benefits, to a monthly direct debit payments scheme, to pay an equivalent amount, but the rewards effectively being changed to for example a annual raffle, payments suggested, were roughly speaking a division of 12 of the annual sub:

Change annual fees to direct debit:

£4.17 steel

£12.50 claret

£41.67 amber

Gives £75k per annum income from current membership base

Option to pay more would be encouraged for those that could, please bare in mind that this was proposed after details was given about other clubs who are now going for fan control, and the models the now have

Derek or Leeann seemed to suggest that they had investigated DD before the launch and it was deemed after legal and financial advice not possible. One board member suggested that a potential loophole in the legislation due to our status could be exploited to allow it going forward. I think this need an unequivocal definative answer that won't come back to bite us in the future.

 

 

That £75k figure seemed to be based on the current subscriptions plus subs from the 25% of people who indicated they would join from the questionnaire if it was made easier in terms of paying up their joining fee over time. There didn't seem to be any account for any of the prizes to be purchased for the annual draw (£10k for a car and £5 in ancillary prizes?). For me was flawed and inappropriate to present with the aim to vote.£75k was from current members opting in to monthly payments scheme, this significant change alone would vastly improve the standing of the society at this money all goes straight into society wealth, unlike the current annual payments

the change to Direct debits also opens up , the option that any future members get to pay joining fee that way, then switch to lower payments , or indeed explore payments options tha t take longer term, where full membership doesn't apply until a target amount was reached for each member, this would also mean that like founding members , the newer members would then start contributing to funds monthly after completing membership total cost, these numbers are of course forecast , based on survey responses of those that said the would join if payments was easier (25%) and another percentage chunk said likely join, this would mean the monthly divison of annual subs would rise to £180k per annum in future years, optimistic maybe, but many agreed that the principle of society payments going into society funds is the way it should be

To be fair I did say "seemed" as I can't recall it being detailed. What I can recall is being told the society gives £40k to the club to cover the benefits it offers (the club as I understand doesn't make money on this) and it was explained that this was unsustainable. It is for that reason I assumed the £75k in subs was from an increased membership because based on the above maths there is £35k of a discrepancy (I took that to be the growing of the membership base). No doubt those such as yourself how default on your annual subs are partly responsible for this.

 

 

It was laid out the current system was unsustainable, then we were asked to vote if we'd like to keep that or this option 2. I'm reminded of the Eddie Izzard "Cake or Death" sketch. I don't know what they were hoping to achieve but all it did was make me shake my head at how amateur it came across.

in no way was it said to be unsustainable, but it was calculated at current growth it would be 2040 to reach £1.5million, and as a society no one could say if that time frame would support the club when required, this is the main point I disagree with you on, we were only asked to vote on whether the society board should take these proposals forward to discussion with the larger group of members, it was hardly comical in how amateur it was, although I suppose if you picture something like the benny hill tune in your head it would have enhanced the event, I'm grateful that the amateurs ( with their specific skills) do this, as I and others didn't volunteer, this is the point that always annoys me at these events however, the majority in the room voted to allow the board to go to the member base, but as always individual voices forced another 45 minutes discussion and a third ways as you allude to below

I'm at fault here, the unsustainable feature related to the status quo where the society reimbursed the club for the society benefits that the club lost out on - I should have made that more clear in my original post. I was not referring to the growth of the pot (which you rightly point out is sustainable, but very slow). The amateur elements I referenced were the reliance on 15 month old accounts, the fact that the person concerned with delivering them didn't know the number of current members off the top of their head without referring to notes (I would have hoped that number would roll off the tongue) and the presentation where here is option 1 that we are doing now, its unsustainable. Here is option 2 that will grow the pot by £75k a year, can we vote for those in support of option 1 please?

I understand its not best to pursue new members when the structure of the scheme is under investigation to change it however I think exploring cost effective ways to pay for a membership should have been fully examined before looking to change the structure.

this statement surprises me, that you consider nothing has been done to explore this, Suppose I have been around these meetings and maybe heard comment that wasn't at every session, but its clear that new ways of payment are to be implemented if the members agree, but the glaring point on the back of that is that it will take too long and the annual payments are being lost to the society

The annual payments were never meant to go to the society, as discussed in paragraph one, it was meant to offset the loss the club would incur by offering those benefits to gain members. It's evident that the £5k Amber members who were there didn't seem too impressed, they pursued their investment with the benefits making a major part in the decision making process at the time. It was muted that discussions could be entered with the club where these could be maintained. So if the Steel's move to the pot growing option then we could have a different system in place depending on your input amount.

 

 

It's been covered before in other threads if we grew out home attendance by 1,200 a game approximately then we would pretty much break even in an average season. Yet again anything associated with this club tends to go for the easy option in pumping those already involved for more money (an example was given where a member was called and asked to increase his membership level) rather than go to increase membership from the harder people who have drifted however have affection and an affinity for Motherwell.Probably for another thread, as this changes nothing about the goals of the society, sure it would slow down the draw on funds, if the club board didn't spend the additional income hosting a magic show in Vegas that they would deserve

I take it you are implying that to increase our home attendances by 1,200 is pie in the sky? I hope the patronising tone is by chance and not calculated as it does the debate no service. If we follow our current season ticket marketing strategy then I agree, however proactive targeting of lapsed and fair weather fans could achieve this if resourced and supported in the right way. However you will notice the second part of the paragraph talked about increased Well Society membership and therefore quite right to refer to in this thread. There are people out there who would join if it was made possible with easy to bite payments which I think was overlooked. Simple way to sort it, tickbox at the bottom of your DD mandate, "Do you wish to qualify for benefits package or have your subscription go fully to the Well Society?"

 

 

I for one signed up to a scheme to buy the club with benefits. I love the club but I don't have bottomless pockets and my generosity only goes so far. It is a business after all.>and that's the crux, every member will consider their own situation, I'd say that most couldn't name the benefits, majority if they could name one would be ST discount, and a significant amount would rather the society grew quicker than save what £20-25 on a book

You are ignoring that the quickest way to grow the pot is to get people to join, not grow it by £75k+ per year from subs. Nothing was discussed if removing the benefits would limit that uptake going forward.

 

 

I'd implore the board to spend their time getting another 900 members from those who already go every week and we're on £800k, 600 lapsed Well fans is another £250k and we're over £1m and on our way.

they have spent significant time and effort and in one year gained 120 new members half of which were kids, so no significant boost to the fund, they went and asked those in the support to give them an idea on why they hadn't joined, 887 non-members gave them measured feedback, which meant changing terms, they explored options and looked at best return, changing new member payments terms and switching redirecting on-going payments into society funds was seen as best option, I personally think a couple of minor tweaks would suffice like, using some of the on-going funding to provide rewards would be preferable, but for the life of me , I cannot fathom out why 6 or 7 voices stalled the communication with the wider membership, making the board add an option that could have been added if majority wanted it

A number of options should have been presented with detail on what happened at present. Pro's and Con's for each could have been discussed and then voted upon. Come to an AGM with hard and fast ideas to vote on, not something to go away with and work on further then go back to the membership and ask them to vote again, that should be investigated and worked through in depth before bringing it to that meeting.

The existing model for me was OK, just needed tweaking so the club and society weren't worse off than they were before it came into being (by which the club covers all its costs associated with benefits and the Society doesn't need to dip into the £407k pot to cover any annual shortfall due to benefits).

[Ian-in-Oz]

Having an annual lotto to win a car isn't going to do anything to attract ex-pats to sign up.

[David]

I'm a fair bit behind in catching up with this thread, but this here is something I believe I (and others hopefully) could get behind;

 

Change annual fees to direct debit:

£4.17 steel

£12.50 claret

£41.67 amber

I'd be all over the Claret membership in this scenario, which is something I would never have dreamed of entertaining with a £5,000 lump sum required up front. The lump sum is what is turning people off in my opinion. I know very few people with that kind of money to invest, especially with no monetary return.

[Frazzie]

Is it not just £1k up front?