superward Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Just a quick post but if I understand correctly, the club had 5 years to pay back either £1m or £1.3m to LH and a further approx £300,000 to JB. At the moment they have managed to make the minimum required payments to both and are on course to pay everything back on time as per the agreements without the WS having to pay the loans for the club (although some appear to be saying that the WS has paid the club cash to run things which could be seen as indirectly paying the loan if true) What I don't know - and this may be down to lack of research - is how many members do we have, (paying or having paid a one off payment), how much has been raised and how much is still in the bank. Anyone confirm or correct me? More or less right aye - we borrowed £650k from Les originally, that was topped up by c £350k to take total loan to c £1m. The figures are further back in the chain but I think that is about right for Boyle. There was also a smaller amount of £50k owed to McMahon/Weir (£25k each) Spoke to my Dad today and not much more to add than has already been said. For the mention of 1000 fans above. That probably relates to the following from the website: To achieve our aims, we will, recruit at least 2000 members paying on average £10 per month to contribute to the income-generating effort and demonstrate commitment to ownership by the fans in additional to membership revenues, raise a capital reserve of £500,000 ensure that at least 1000 members remain registered during the period 2015-2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 At the moment I don't have any confidence in the WS. I tried to be optimistic with it all but based on stories people have told me I am unsure that they are the correct people to run the football club. If they prove me wrong, Great. I would be delighted with that. Maybe if I was able to attend last night my opinion would be slighty different, I'm not sure if that would have been a good or a bad thing though! Unless the WS has enough members willing to vote out an experienced Board of Directors, we won't really be running the club - we will just own it. This isn't going to be one of the those "vote on every decision" kind of deals. It should be (I'm hoping) more like the Spanish model - which seems to be working OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 It should be (I'm hoping) more like the Spanish model - which seems to be working OK. Aren't a whole host of Spanish clubs either broke or propped up by banks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suprawell Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 For me it's a strange one. Basically someone (Les) front the money but has security over the assets which far outweights the commitments he's made. So he either gets his money back or worst case scenario a nice bit of Motherwell prize real estate. The fans are the ones who will FOREVER be dipping into their pockets to keep an unbalanced ship afloat. Even if we get ownership and it's a very big if do you seriously think for one minute that the WS will just turn around and say good news guys cancel those direct debits and get on as business as usual...not likely. Along with your season ticket, merch and refreshments we would also be putting our hands in our pockets to keep the club running. We talk about cup runs, selling players etc, but how realistic is it we sell the next Faddy or have a decent cup run each year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Aren't a whole host of Spanish clubs either broke or propped up by banks? Sadly, that is true for most clubs around the globe. I was talking more about the operational side of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 For me it's a strange one. Basically someone (Les) front the money but has security over the assets which far outweights the commitments he's made. So he either gets his money back or worst case scenario a nice bit of Motherwell prize real estate. The fans are the ones who will FOREVER be dipping into their pockets to keep an unbalanced ship afloat. Even if we get ownership and it's a very big if do you seriously think for one minute that the WS will just turn around and say good news guys cancel those direct debits and get on as business as usual...not likely. Along with your season ticket, merch and refreshments we would also be putting our hands in our pockets to keep the club running. We talk about cup runs, selling players etc, but how realistic is it we sell the next Faddy or have a decent cup run each year? Key line there I thought worthwhile to pull out, the whole idea is it will not be unbalanced: For everything read and heard...my take is...issues and debate about likelihood aside.... The club and society are working towards a model that will have the club running on an at least break even basis by the time Les leaves. Running on league and cip income, projected transfer fees rec'd etc etc. So, in theory at least, if and when the WS takes a controlling share then the club should not need propped up on a regular basis anymore because we should have paid back Les, paid back Boyle and paid back McMahon/Weir. It will then be up to the club to ensure the model set out is adhered to. Of course the WS wont tell us to stop DD's. The full model of fan ownership is that it is ongoing and those paying the DD will continue to do so....it does not stop when we get ownership. Much like Hearts who still have half of their regular home fans signed up each month on an ongoing basis. The 'pot of money' being aimed for should be a rainy day fund so to speak once WS owns the club. However, one of the main risks we have is if that rainy day fund disappears for whatever reason then we have no sugar daddy owner, like Les or Boyle, or board members (like McMahon, Weir) to turn to anymore (assuming the WS board members aren't minted). Which is why it is key the club needs to be run on a break even basis in the first place as we lose that option to be bailed out by loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 I was in attendance last night and came home far from impressed from what was communicated by the 4 being questioned (Feely, McMahon, McCafferty and Dickie). McCafferty for being chairman of both the Well Society and Motherwell FC had very little input which begs the questions if he has the leadership qualities to drive the club and society forward as there has been little in evidence so far that he is the right man for the job. McMahon came across in an arrogant manner and as Andy P pointed out above the question regarding the 'active' members was dealt with by extreme incompetence from all involved. I attended for most of the meeting and was a bit surprised that Brian MacCafferty didn't say more. However, Jim McMahon was the only one present who was closely involved in the legalities and mechanics of setting up the Society and so it was no surprise to me that he was the one who answered all the legal/procedural/technical questions. He didn't come across arrogant to me at all. That said, I was surprised that there was no definition of active members and yes perhaps there should be. However in the great scheme of things I doubt if its a major issue to be honest. Some good answers from the panel some poor answers from the panel but nothing gave me huge concern. The issue which does need clarifying though is the one about subscriptions/renewals/monthly payments. One questioner said that he'd stopped paying his annual renewal because of concerns but on the basis of answers provided last night he was now going to renew. So yes it was a mixed session. I wouldn't want those who didn't attend however to get the impression that everyone thought it was a shambles they most certainly didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted November 17, 2015 Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Attended the meeting last night and came away with a mixture of positive and negative feelings. The first part of the Society portion was devoted to a promotional video and then Jim McMahon explaining the history of the Society and detailing how the involvement of Les Hutchison had impacted both MFC and Society. He confirmed the Society had committed to inject an additional £350k to the Club and also Guarantee the Loans provided by LH. It appears the Board had little option but to agree, if LH was to come on board. In truth there was little new information but at least some things were confirmed. The rest of the meeting was devoted to questions from the audience. My feeling (but those that were there will have their own opinion) was that the panel members were a lot less comfortable with that, unscripted, part of the evening, on at least one occasion disagreeing amongst themselves which looked poor. Questions were answered, but sometimes only after persistence from the questioner and at times it appeared to me as if there was an uncertainty about how detailed an answer should be given. Also, once or twice, panel members seemed to take matters personally which didn't help. Probably just me, but I couldn't help feeling that, in the mind of some of the Board, the meeting was about answering criticism rather than a genuine effort at open communication. The wee dig at Online Forums leaps to mind. I was surprised at how little involvement the Chairman had in the discussions. I thought it was fair enough to prioritise audience questions, but unfortunately that resulted in there being no time left to cover the questions submitted by those unable to attend. It might be that those questions were covered anyway, but maybe not. As I was leaving I suggested that answers to all questions whether asked during the evening or by EMail should be put on the web site as soon as possible. So what was confirmed? As far as I can remember, and in no particular order, - 1. The Society has fulfilled it's initial obligation under the Hutchison agreement by providing a Loan of £350 to MFC. There is no requirement to inject further funds, so the Society balances will grow month by month. When LH is fully repaid, all shares will be transferred to the Society for £1 in total. Society Funds grew by £9k last month. 2. MFC are responsible for all payments to LH. Only if the Football Club is unable to make the scheduled payments will the Society funds be utilised under the terms of the Guarantee. The next payment is due in December and the Club will have no difficulty in meeting that obligation. 3. The Society has loaned MFC £500k to date. In an attempt to protect Society funds in the event of MFC entering Administration, the Board undertook to investigate whether it would be possible to Secure the loans by way of a Charge over the assets of MFC. Les Hutchison and John Boyle are protected in this manner so it seems fair and reasonable that the Society be given the same safeguard. 4. MFC are gradually and carefully reducing expenditure so as to maintain stability, particularly player budget. Should be breaking even in around a year's time now that the correct structures are in place. The return of Rangers next season will assist greatly re gate income and sponsorship monies. I was a bit uncertain as to whether the sale of one player a year was essential to a return to profit or whether that was the icing on the cake. Jim McMahon seemed to start by saying it was essential and then suggested the budget changes would take care of it given a reasonable season on the field. 5. LH wants to see 1000 "active" Society Members to demonstrate sufficient support for fan ownership. The Society Board see 2000 "active" members as a target to aspire to. Nobody was able to really identify what exactly qualified as an "active" Member and how success could be quantified in that manner. Some of the audience felt that total funds collected allied to the number of members was a more meaningful measurement of success. The Board undertook to publish both Membership uptake and funds collected on a monthly basis for all to see. 6. 60% of Season Ticket holders are not members of the Society. They are to be specifically targeted by way of phone calls and EMails. The majority (I think) of those that joined the Society at the outset do not contribute on a monthly basis. I'm not sure of the exact numbers quoted so perhaps someone can confirm? 7. MFC were forced to sell Jamie Murphy on the cheap to ensure the payment of player wages. Sheffield United knew the situation and used it to their advantage. However, a sell on clause was agreed and resulted in the receipt of an additional £180k when Jamie moved to Brighton. Bearing in mind that he was soon to be out of contract, it wasn't really that bad a deal. 8. Doubts were raised regarding the viability of the Society taking over the ownership of the Club in the absence of a considerable Reserve Fund to cover short term Cash Flow difficulties. Say, for instance, all Society monies were required to repay Mr Hutchison. Jim McMahon indicated that he felt a balance of around £1m would be advisable and he suggested this was possible, providing MFC returned to profit and Society membership grew. As I said, my take on things and I will have missed something. But there you have it. Will I be setting up my Monthly Direct Debit? Not quite yet but I may do so depending on what steps are taken following the meeting and whether the promised improvement in communication and openness takes place. Time will tell. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted November 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2015 Denny's, thanks for the account of you view of the meeting. I hope that others who attended will confirm or challenge your views including the WS if they feel the need - so that a correct and accurate view of both the meeting and the current situation can be arrived at, allowing us all to move forward if not together then at least in the same direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimus Prime Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 I thought Dennyc's account was comprehensive and a reasonable summing up of the proceedings although I don't agree with all of it, mainly his/her account of the panel but would concur that the panel could have been more effective in handling some questions. Credit to Jim McMahon though for showing great patience in answering a persistent questioner in relation to a point about Jamie Murphy's transfer. The guy must have asked the exact same question about 3 times and the original answer was as clear and as plain as the nose on your face, but still he persisted. Some Chairs I know would not have been so understanding and would have cut him off brusquely after the first reply. I'll be emailing the Society in the morning to ask for clarification on renewals/monthly contributions and also to request that emailed questions be answered, if they have not already been dealt with (I didn't submit any myself). That said, I can quite understand why "live" questions were taken first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 They took live questions first because they knew the people that emailed questions would never know if they were answered - thanks to the complete lack of access for the long distance members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 They took live questions first because they knew the people that emailed questions would never know if they were answered - thanks to the complete lack of access for the long distance members. My perception is that you give them too much credit if you believe it a deliberate ploy not to select emailed questions. I would suspect more a lack of organisation than anything else. I say that because it was noticeable the difference even between the first and second halves of the night where firstly you had Cowan armed with a sheet of paper of emailed questions for McGhee in addition to purposely floating around the room looking for the raised arms that he requested before the Q&A started. In contrast in the latter half we had no host as such announcing the protocols of asking questions or making clear how the floor should interact with the panel. It gradually became more and more of a shout-out rather than hands up approach which left the WS person chasing back and forth across the room at times thrusting the mic under the face of people who by the time he got there had near finished what they were saying, far less having the structure in place for a host to pause to ask an emailed question. Might have been better served convincing Tam to stay on for the second half of the night too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 There is no way that the WS, in it's current guise, is capable of owning the football club. Little leadership or business nuance has been demonstrated from the start and we're struggling to generate sustained income. It was mentioned above that 60% of ST holders haven't joined the WS and phonecalls will be made. 25 years of going to FP and I've yet to receive 1 call. I appreciate this has partly been due to an outdated database. However every single one of us that bought tickets for the playoffs should have been bombarded, capitalising on our state of euphoria. It's time to be realistic about what is achievable. At the inception of the WS I ascertained that our role was to provide an interest free overdraft. This was denied by the club and society. As it transpires, I think this is the best we can offer. It's time to accept the limitation of our combined interest and expertise and commit to providing a financial buffer during lean times. This security would be in exchange for a proportional and engaging share of the club, nowhere near outright ownership. The club meanwhile needs to budget accordingly and seek leadership from inside. I'm concerned to read that we're still budgeting on top 6 finishes. This is preposterous for a small club looking to live within it's means. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimus Prime Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 However every single one of us that bought tickets for the playoffs should have been bombarded, capitalising on our state of euphoria. I agree with your general point about marketing calls. However am I right in thinking that the Society and MFC are 2 separate entities and the club simply couldn't hand over personal details without breaching data protection laws? Maybe an IT expert can clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 I think I am right in saying Derek Weir and Jim McMahon are both WS members also. So with some resignations from the WS board and nominations at the time of takeover they could very well be on the WS board running the club and give that business acumen we may need. In fact I would be surprised if something like that didn't happen nearer the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 I think you're right. If we get our act together and do take over the club, I'm sure we can find qualified people like Derek Weir who'd be willing to step in. I imagine there are a number of qualified candidates who could run a football club that never fulfill that ambition because they don't have the resources available to invest that is normally required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Perhaps I'm being naïve but I've always been of the belief that if and when fan ownership happens it wouldn't simply be a case that Well Society board members would automatically become the board of Motherwell FC. I have always been of the belief that at that point the most appropriate candidates would be sought for those directors positions. If there is a perception, given how plenty have aired their concerns vocally about the WS board have performed, perhaps it may be worth clarifying what the envisaged make up of a future fan-owned club board might look like. Reflecting upon what was said the other evening, whilst I understand there will still be caution in case the WS are required to step in an pay loans, but if those other criteria with Les are satisfied then the message really should be broadcast as strongly and positively as possible now that the Society is now genuinely positioning itself for ownership and its now all about accruing the funds to help with that. It may be some kind of tag line is required to spread that message and grab attention effectively in communications For I'm not sure message has quite hit home yet. I think back to the final speech of the evening made I think by Brian McCafferty. I'm sure what he hoped to achieve was a kind of rallying call to send everyone away positive but in the end his final words were met with silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 I see the WS have been busy on twitter today. So the point is being reiterated that we're looking for 2,000 members contributing an average of £10 a month. A target we hoped to achieve by Dec 15. So £240k a year, a decent buffer. Am I right in saying that out of out 1600+ members, around 25% are contributing monthly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 I see the WS have been busy on twitter today. So the point is being reiterated that we're looking for 2,000 members contributing an average of £10 a month. A target we hoped to achieve by Dec 15. So £240k a year, a decent buffer. Am I right in saying that out of out 1600+ members, around 25% are contributing monthly? That's what featured in a piece last week methinks - less than 400. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 Am I right in saying that out of out 1600+ members, around 25% are contributing monthly? This for me and a few others is the main point of confusion. Others are confused over highly complex legal and financial issues but for me this is a basic point. I'm not sure what the 400 comprises. Is it: A) 400 members who are paying up their subscriptions monthly? B) 400 members who are paying up their subscriptions monthly and members who are renewing by monthly instalments C) 400 members who have pledged a monthly sum over and above membership D) 400 members comprising a combination of the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 18, 2015 Report Share Posted November 18, 2015 That is a good question. I always assumed D), but it hasn't been spelled out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Lasley is in the Scotsman today urging fans to sign up. I fear there is major financial trouble ahead. Whilst I remain unconvinced the Well Society will work (I am a member though) the number of fans signed up is staggeringly low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Lasley is in the Scotsman today urging fans to sign up. I fear there is major financial trouble ahead. Whilst I remain unconvinced the Well Society will work (I am a member though) the number of fans signed up is staggeringly low. The number of WS members has been quoted at around 1600 if that is correct its getting close to 50% of our average gate these days, the target seems to be 2000 members at least another 20% i cant see it happening we dont have the fan base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 The society was always going to get some media coverage this week given our Jambo love-in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Lasley is in the Scotsman today urging fans to sign up. I fear there is major financial trouble ahead. Whilst I remain unconvinced the Well Society will work (I am a member though) the number of fans signed up is staggeringly low. It's all part of fan ownership week in the run up the hearts game. Nothing has changed. 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.