Mst Open Meeting

[Tweed]

Politics - interesting stuff. On the Martin Rose question, my feeling is that does he feel he can represent both? If he does then great no need to resign. Do the Trust feel he can represent both? If they do great they'll reappoint. The problem is if that is what the Trust believe they need to convey that to the supporters and get them to also think that as those who see that as an obstacle to joining won't join otherwise. If that message can't be conveyed they need to think about removing him as he could appear to be holding the Trust back. Harsh reality of life unfortunately.

[Ballso]

As I said at the meeting the other night, I feel that any member of the MST elected to the board of the club would come in for stick from people, no matter who it was. This could be Martin Rose, AndyRoss or anyone else for that matter. Unless the board member was to come back with the answer that people were looking for every time, they would be accused of not looking after supporter's interests.

 

I think that people need to realise that JB owns so much of the club that he can make decisions whenever he wants and an elected member of the MST is unlikely to be able to change his mind once it is made up.

[AndyRoss]

Just to assure you all if the day ever comes where a trust board member is elected to the MFC board. It certainly will not be me

[Frazzie]

Nor me...

 

Frazzle

[Ballso]

Maybe not either of you but you were mentioned to make a point really!

[TheLip69]

TheLip69

 

I'll address a few points here.

 

Firstly, your response to my reaction to Shug's post. I'll take on board anything he has to say that is constructive. If he would care to give me an example of the Benifits us Trust Board members are supposed to be enjoying and why he thinks we are in it for ourselves, then I'll take it on board. All I can see is blind statements with no substance.

 

Martin Rose - Conflict of interest. I've often thought that myself. Indeed, when I was on the trust board years ago when it first came about I was of that opinion too. Having went back on trust board, Martin's hard work in recent months have convinced me that he's not suffering from a conflict of interests. Is he the right man to be chairman? That's for the members to decide. My personal thoughts are with the current board members he is the right man. If the membership declines any further then I think I wouldn't be getting value from my tenner membership if I didn't voice for change.

 

Seat in the board for the fans? It's one of the key points I would want the trust to persue. I believe the club is in decent shape just now, but if Boyle pops his kogs tomorrow where would we be? I would want a Trust rep to be involved in shaping the future running of the club once Boyles millions have passed us by. Remember also, we may have a consultation coming up on a new stadium if/when Fir Park is deemed past is shelf life. I would also want a Trust (fans) voice on how the club Board shape things. The only other option is militant protest, but you need something to go WRONG to stimulate militant protest - and there hasn't been much wrong recently past Maurice Malpas. It may be worth asking all of the membership and potential membership if a Trust seat on the board is actually what we need incase there are other people out there with the same feeling as you.

 

My point about Shug's post is that while I do not share the belief that "some people are just in it for themslves" it is something I have heard from a few sources, often enough for me to think it is the generally held view. I think that's a communication problem more than anything else.

I don't see how Martin Rose can possibly avoid a conflict of interest, and I would like to see this point addressed properly. It is also a fact that more than a few fans refuse to join the Trust purely because of his presence on the board.

As for a seat on the board for the Trust, I am totally against that proposition.

The way I look at it, the Trust should be a conduit for the fans to the board and the only way the Trust can do that is by remaining outside of the boardroom. Joining the board takes away the necessary neutrality for representing the fans. I feel if the Trust is to properly represent the fans, they should be lobbying the board, not joining it.

[Motherwell Seagull]

The way I look at it, the Trust should be a conduit for the fans to the board and the only way the Trust can do that is by remaining outside of the boardroom. Joining the board takes away the necessary neutrality for representing the fans. I feel if the Trust is to properly represent the fans, they should be lobbying the board, not joining it.

 

I have mixed feelings on this one.

 

As long as the club has 1 majority shareholder, a seat on the board means little in reality. Yes, attending board meetings and at least having a say can be useful, but a similar relationship could be struck by having a close working relationship with the club. If, however, the Trust and the Club Board take opposite sides of an argument, and that relationship deteriorates, not being on the board may well mean not being heard at all.

 

I think its important for the Trust to be heard - especially when they have a different agenda to the club.

 

Of course, if a day ever comes where we essentially have split ownership of the club - I would have thought that having a seat on the board is essential.

 

Am not cynical enough to agree that a seat on the board takes away the necessary neutrality for representing the fans. The important factor here is that whoever the board member is must represent the Trust at the board meetings, and have no other Agenda; and it must be the fans who decide the Trust position and goals by participating in the initiatives etc that the Trust put forward.

[TheLip69]

I have mixed feelings on this one.

 

As long as the club has 1 majority shareholder, a seat on the board means little in reality. Yes, attending board meetings and at least having a say can be useful, but a similar relationship could be struck by having a close working relationship with the club. If, however, the Trust and the Club Board take opposite sides of an argument, and that relationship deteriorates, not being on the board may well mean not being heard at all.

 

I think its important for the Trust to be heard - especially when they have a different agenda to the club.

 

Of course, if a day ever comes where we essentially have split ownership of the club - I would have thought that having a seat on the board is essential.

 

Am not cynical enough to agree that a seat on the board takes away the necessary neutrality for representing the fans. The important factor here is that whoever the board member is must represent the Trust at the board meetings, and have no other Agenda; and it must be the fans who decide the Trust position and goals by participating in the initiatives etc that the Trust put forward.

 

Cheers for taking this on, it's a point I feel very strongly about.

Firstly, there is always going to be a majority shareholder at Fir Park. No-one is going to be dumb enough to lay out money on the club without a controlling interest. Clubs like Motherwell need people like John Boyle to survive. That's a fact of life in Scottish Football. So as you say having one man on the board will mean very little.

If the club were in a power struggle on the board with the Trust stuck in the middle, there will only be one loser in that scenario, the Trust. Which side do we pick? The one which offers the Trust more, or the one which has better plans for the club? Will our choice win? What if he doesn't? No matter which way we go, we wont come out of it smelling of Roses. It's better not to be involved and then make arrangements to sit down with the winner. If we chose the wong option he may not be as amenable to the Trust as he ought.

Secondly, the Trust member on the board CANNOT just sit on his hands until the Trust is mentioned, that's not the way these things work.

I really feel that the Trust should be working independent of the board but also in consultation with the board. Lobbying board members, giving presentations to the board where we feel the need to put our point across in a more professional manner. This is the type of things the Trust should be working towards.

Access to the board is more important than a seat on the board, believe me.

 

I realise a lot of the stuff I've written above is hypothetical but I'm playing Devil's advocate here.

[Motherwell Seagull]

Firstly, there is always going to be a majority shareholder at Fir Park. No-one is going to be dumb enough to lay out money on the club without a controlling interest.

 

You may well be right on this point but I have seen funnier things happen. Should anything happen to Boyle, we could find that he has split his shares between family, or, god forbid, we end up with 2 yanks buying the franchise .

 

I have seen power battles in the Board Room at Chelsea and Brighton simply because investors have been needed for Stadia (and if rumours are to be believed it would be foolhardy to think that we could manage an new stadium without investment from somewhere).

 

 

If the club were in a power struggle on the board with the Trust stuck in the middle, there will only be one loser in that scenario, the Trust. Which side do we pick? The one which offers the Trust more, or the one which has better plans for the club? Will our choice win? What if he doesn't? No matter which way we go, we wont come out of it smelling of Roses. It's better not to be involved and then make arrangements to sit down with the winner. If we chose the wong option he may not be as amenable to the Trust as he ought.

Secondly, the Trust member on the board CANNOT just sit on his hands until the Trust is mentioned, that's not the way these things work.

 

Regardless of whether the Trust are on the Board or not, I would expect them to be advocating the best solution for the club. I suspect that we have little to worry about on this front for the time being as Boyle has already demonstrated that he will not sell just for the sake of it.

 

Yes, being on the board will undoubtedly mean politics - but there again so does lobbying the board from the outside. I do not believe there is a perfect solution here, just a simple observation that being on the Board and having their voice recorded in the minutes will (to my way of thinking) provide a louder voice than being on the outside looking in.

 

 

I really feel that the Trust should be working independent of the board but also in consultation with the board. Lobbying board members, giving presentations to the board where we feel the need to put our point across in a more professional manner. This is the type of things the Trust should be working towards.

Access to the board is more important than a seat on the board, believe me.

 

I certainly do not disagree with your last point about access, but when the Board and the Trust necessarily take opposite standpoints, how can the Trust be expected to maintain a direct line of communication with the club without having a formal relationship?

 

Mr Boyle has already been seen (rightly or wrongly) to cut communication with the Trust over disagreements (I think it was No means No?). If you are correct in that there will only ever be a majority shareholder running Motherwell, it may be even more important to have a formal line of communication?

 

I personally do not think lobbying alone is the answer - although I don't think that is what you are actually advocating. Lobbying can all too easily turn into pandering to the big boss, or even worse, just sitting on the fence. Worse still, it could be used as a reason why the Trust does not actually achieve anything: Not that I think a seat on the board should be the absolute goal, but if we are to have a Trust, then I want it to have some teeth!