Brazilian Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 he appointed directors to run the shooting match.......................... Three new directors have been appointed – Ian Reid, Peter Kellie and Leanne Thomas, who is Mr Hutchison’s daughter. All three are from the local area and have been nominated by the new owner to help transform the business across various areas of the Club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 And of course, having appointed the 3 directors, he then sat back and let them get on with it. You believe that, fine. That's your view and you're entitled to it. Others believe otherwise as they are entitled to. Let's just agree to differ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 The Society is not running the club. The Society owns the club (or will own the club once the deal is done). The Board will run the club. The Society will influence who is on the Board. The society will decide who is on the board. If the society doesn't who will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 he appointed directors to run the shooting match.......................... Les Hutchison will have been in overall control and will have been involved from time to time in major decisions. However as Brazilian says he appointed his own directors to run the club on a week to week basis and do his bidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Les Hutchison will have been in overall control and will have been involved from time to time in major decisions. However as Brazilian says he appointed his own directors to run the club on a week to week basis and do his bidding. And do his bidding....does that not infer he was effectively running the show then? Maybe not licking the stamps to put on envelopes, but making all the important decisions. Again, not saying that was a bad thing. In fact, the progress achieved is to be applauded. We might not be that far apart in our thinking, just debating the exact words to describe the set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggischomper Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Fucking hell. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 And of course, having appointed the 3 directors, he then sat back and let them get on with it. You believe that, fine. That's your view and you're entitled to it. Others believe otherwise as they are entitled to. Let's just agree to differ. I'll choose not to, agree to differ, like everyone with opinions they can be different, I accept that. and my personal opinion probably isn't that different on most of the society performance to date from your own, going by the brief chats we've had, its failed over and over to deliver, except it would now seem on the core goal...... the difference as i see it is, some people are choosing not to fill in the gaps with the worst case scenario, I do not know the reality on much of the detail, so choose to seek the answers which are there to see and allow for discussion on what is not on the back of that I'm not going to let that worst case scenario propagate on this forum, or any other, it does the club or society no good, a club we are all meant to be supporting not battering. the society was the only option after Boyles long time in charge, Les was the only viable option in the opinion of the Club and the Society board in the last 12-18months Les has decided he needs to move on, the reasons are not public, a memorandum of understanding has been signed to transfer ownership of his shares to the Society for £1 Details have still to be finalised, but it has been mentioned that capital has been provided to assist during the transfer period and loan payments to be deferred. but as this is a 'Well society thread, lets keep it to that, the Society is on the brink of achieving it's core goal what do people think the Society should have done, when Les or his people approached them to offer the club for £1? say, no thanks, thats exactly why the society was formed but we feel it would be best to reject this offer A mythical alternative is not on the table, maybe if the deal goes through the society could trade some of the stock for cash whilst retaining the majority holding, I'd buy some, maybe they have received significant contributions to date? there are plenty of challenges, as always, but come on, lets give some support to help make it work, I stopped contributing after my initial membership was paid, I dont believe due process was followed on too many occasions, as a compromise I signed up my nephew to help with the membership target, Tonight I've signed up for regular contributions, the Society are likley to own the club, that was the aim, the Society require funds to function, thats what thousands of us agreed to, so I'l back that up now that the situation requires it ( and im in position to do so , as should be given, no one should be over stretching for any payments) I'm actually more frustrated with the club on reflection than the society, the professional errors have been more damaging to date. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Brazilian, you make a lot of sense in what you say and, mostly, I agree with both the content and the sentiment. Much of our prolonged debate has really been about the use of certain words...eg Own and Run. I certainly agree you have a right to express your views. To clarify, I have never ever said that the Society should have declined Les' recent offer nor that the Club should not have gotten involved with him. He was the only realistic option and it seems great progress has been made under his ownership/control. The abruptness of his departure disappoints and worries me and I reserve the right to express that fact I have only ever requested financial information from the Society in an effort to provide proof positive that progress has been made and that proper care is being taken of funds donated by folk like me and you. Folk whose passion for the Club ends up with them on this Forum endlessly debating back and forward. The fact that promises, which were made in public, to provide basic,meaningful, relevant information have been broken equally annoys and worries me. I had hoped that publishing details of a healthy, growing bank balance would encourage many of those with doubts to invest in the Society. As you say, the need for those funds could be even more imperative given the latest turn of events. Several months have passed since the Society meeting and we have yet to see any improvement in communication and information sharing. At the end of the day I genuinely believe we want the same things. That is, the Club and The Well Society to thrive. Otherwise we would never have signed up in the first place. Ok, you think I am too negative and I can accept that. But then, maybe I believe some people are too positive in the absence of hard facts. Ok,can we now agree to differ on those aspects where we differ. And move on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMWellfan Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Long time lurker - Lets be blunt about it - the £100,000 a year is chickenfeed compared to the club turnover. Probably around 2% of the club total revenue. Okay, it's welcome, it's handy, but it's delusional to think that The Well Society will ever develop into anything more than a sticking plaster. The Society is LOSING highly committed Motherwell fans, and that's bad news. The real calamity at our cub has been the boards chickenshit attitude to contracts. Jeez, this week we are supposed to celebrate the extension of Chris Cadden's contract to 2018. The find of the season? a two year contract? come on - we're going to end up having to sell him by next summer or watch him leave for a development fee. I nearly fainted when the club gave Moult a three year contract, and I'm delighted that we did so as he is a prime example of what I'm talking about. A two year contract would have seen him able to sign a pre-contract agreement in January, and you can be sure with his form there would be clubs sniffing about him if they thought they could get him free. I'm aware that Cadden and his agent may not have agreed to a three year contract, but two year contracts have been the default position for too long. The money we have blown by losing transfer fees is a disgrace. Maybe someone should start a thread and work it out how much we have lost watching players given a platform by Motherwell walk out for nothing or a pittance. That is the real shame of the board, and of the club. Man, look at the Ryan Gauld transfer - that represents 30 years income for The Well Society, and that's before we even start looking at the other Dundee Unted transfers. It's getting humiliating for us - we WERE a club that could develop and sell. Will I support the Well Society? yes. But the board better get there act together and understand that it is they who are failing the club by handing out misjudged contracts, and leaving us wide open to be taken advantage of. Useless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfc Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 i talked my mum and sister into joining the society even though there glory hunting bastard's that have only ever turned up for cup final's. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Cadden's agent probably won't let him sign a contract that runs out when he is 22 because of the free transfer rules. I'm sure the club would have liked a longer contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Cadden's agent probably won't let him sign a contract that runs out when he is 22 because of the free transfer rules. I'm sure the club would have liked a longer contract. Chicken shit attitude to a contract. Or so I've read somewhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mintymac Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Looking at the the whole ownership thing although I'm a paid up member of the society if we had a choice between fan ownership and a rich preferably well fan owner then I would prefer the later . But the reality is nobody wants to buy smaller clubs in Scotland as it will cost you . Spoke to a chartered accountant about this and he said the last place he would advise any of his clients to invest in was a football club . So on that basis we have two choices . Wait and see if somebody wants to buy us (unlikely imo)or go with the well society . The choice is there's no choice . So on that basis lets get behind it and MAKE it work . No other alternative . So any body out there swithering/fence sitting don't over analyse it or beat itself up . Just sign up and join the party 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 That is the real shame of the board, and of the club. Man, look at the Ryan Gauld transfer - that represents 30 years income for The Well Society, and that's before we even start looking at the other Dundee Unted transfers. It's getting humiliating for us - we WERE a club that could develop and sell. You can't force players to sign long term deals if they don't want to. To do so you'd also have to offer them pretty high wages and X number of get out clauses in the legal fine print. Its also a gamble giving a young lad a long deal as many youngsters don't make it and the club would then be stuck with a Championship or second division player on high wages for 3/4 years. As far a Dundee United is concerned what percentage of their recent transfer fees will actually go to the club as opposed to their investors who supposedly cleared their debts and others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazles ring piece Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 How much business acumen is actually required? We're not building a hotel, getting lines of credit, moving stadium or expanding the business any time soon. You've got the football side of the club which is mainly run by the manager then a small commercial operation mainly based around hospitality. The majority of the income comes from tickets and media rights neither of which can be influenced much at board level. You obviously need people who can set budgets but it's not exactly dragon's den. Since John Chapman, we've posted losses most years. So sorry Steelboy, recent events beg to differ! However, if we can break even or post a small profit while entertaining, everyone's happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 You can't force players to sign long term deals if they don't want to. To do so you'd also have to offer them pretty high wages and X number of get out clauses in the legal fine print. Its also a gamble giving a young lad a long deal as many youngsters don't make it and the club would then be stuck with a Championship or second division player on high wages for 3/4 years. As far a Dundee United is concerned what percentage of their recent transfer fees will actually go to the club as opposed to their investors who supposedly cleared their debts and others? Exactly this. For the past few years, people on here have been complaining about how Dundee Utd were selling on players for huge fees and raking it in. Except, they were spending huge amounts of money on wages, wallowing in millions of debt (which has been assumed by private individuals skimming off the transfer fees) and having a fire sale on their assets. Would anyone want us to swap places with Dundee Utd now? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted March 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 If the South Americans had taken over they would have got them to sign longer contracts using South American negotiation tactics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 The thought strikes me with a number of people suggesting they are now interested in joining or re-commence contributing towards the 'Well Society funds, should we - as in Steelmen Online - should consider also? If you are relatively new to the boards you may or may not be aware that the good folk of this forum donated sufficient funds for us to get a Claret Level 'Well Society membership (£1500) and if my memory serves me rightly enough for the first years renewal. We took a view thereafter that when it became clear the £150 wasn't going to top up funds but going towards benefits that, in all honesty few were remotely interested in, we would call it quits at that. Important to point out things have changed. Back then the attraction, for me at least, was that a SO enabled me to chip in at a point where I couldn't commit to the £300 up front. We can all now sign up for as little a fiver a month now. So is there an appetite for considering opening things up for donations? Or are things best left as they are and leave people to choose on whether they want to get involved with or renew personal subscriptions? Views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 I'd be happy for us to resume donations again Andy and if this is agreed by members I'll make modest donation to Steelmen online kick things off. Even if we as a site were to contribute a fiver per month it would help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 There are many people who have serious concerns about how the WS seems to be administered, lets be honest since the outset it has been a shambles. The WS members will be the club owners so its not unreasonable for them to expect regular and relevant updates/communications on how the club is doing, how much money the Ws has, how its being invested and used, etc etc. The " fans need to step up " has been a well used phrase recently but the people running the WS need to do the same, they need to get more professional and convince existing and potential members that they know what they are doing, then they might have a chance to meet their targets. Their record so far has not been good how they act from now will make or break them and the WS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Just returned from a few days down south. I've kept an eye on here but has there been any word on a meeting with the fans? I thought something should have been announced in conjunction with the club statement on Tuesday evening. As I've said I've little interest in fan control. I am however interested in holding those in control to account. If that means joining up in order to have a say, then so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Just returned from a few days down south. I've kept an eye on here but has there been any word on a meeting with the fans? I thought something should have been announced in conjunction with the club statement on Tuesday evening. As I've said I've little interest in fan control. I am however interested in holding those in control to account. If that means joining up in order to have a say, then so be it. Yes, in the email out today (might have been yesterday) it mentioned a Q&A to be setup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky79 Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 I haven't even thought about joining the Well Society in a while, it's felt like a project that was stagnating and basically very little positive coverage of it could be found. That being said if we are on the verge of an era where the fans via the Well Society are about to be in control of the club that really has to change. We should be shouting from the rooftops about the potential, and the potential goes both ways if the response remains lukewarm but I look on Facebook and see Motherwell FC has something close to 25,000 likes and whilst that isn't likely to translate into 25,000 people trotting up to Fir Park or with the means to dip into their pockets it certainsly suggests to me we need to be more ambitious in terms of the numbers of people that can be involved. We should be looking to target about 10,000 members, make the joining fee modest. £50 annual fee, free entry to one game with it. Something tangible for the money along with voting rights on board make up and key issues that it suitable to canvas the wider membership over.. Between diehards, fair weather fans, those whose working pattern doesn't allow regular attendance, the slightly disillusioned, the far flung fans who makes occasional if any visits over a season we should certainly be looking for a membership comfortably greater than the three to four thousand who get along fairly regular. It sounds a bit of a stretch, but hitting that annual 10k membership would generate approx half a million a year, I know I'd certainly pay that kind of sum and would jump at it if I felt the upatake was getting close to even half that. But it needs to be aggressively marketed and the mistakes of previous eras of Well Trusts and Well Society will need to be consigned to the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 10k certainly is a bit of a stretch when we can't get 2000 to spend a fiver a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky79 Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 Yeah I agree but I was unaware it was as low as £5 a month until a conversation the other day. It was also £5 a month to go to the Well Society with only indirect influence in running of the club rather than the body that essentially owns the club. Massive difference for me anyway. 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.