Spiderpig Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 We'll be alright. The Society board will be along shortly with a proposal for a meeting about a meeting as per usual.And then not tell anybody anything about it when it is arranged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 I havnt a clue, but settling for a plan that's destined to fail surly can't be the way to go. I understand the scepticism however I'm not sure that the plan is necessarily destined to fail, it may well be the case that people have (understandably) zero faith in the Well Society itself but the bottom line is that as long as the club trades at break even point, as it should as a matter of responsibility then the relative success or failure of the Society itself becomes less relevant. The onus is on the club itself to live within its means, as should always have been the case. That said both the club and the Society have a lot of work to do to even remotely convince that they're credible. The Society's recruitment strategy has seemed to rely more on either guilt tripping fans or making the assumption that because someone is a Motherwell fan then by default they're in favour of this. In any sort of business it's on the person asking for the investment to show that they're worth investing in and if they can't do that then they have absolutely no right to expect someone to say "ach, it's alright just take the money anyway." and on the club's side preaching financial prudence yet signing players who barely even get on the park sends mixed messages to say the least. As weeyin pointed out above from the information that's been put out there it seems like the only key change here is transfer of ownership which has, for whatever reason, happened after 14 months rather than 5 years. Assuming that the repayment plan is still in place and the rug hasn't been pulled from under our feet so to speak then in reality there's not much changed given that the club shouldn't have been expecting Les to be bankrolling them anyway. However having said all that it's now up to the club and Society to fully and unequivocally address these matters in a clear and professional manner not try and dress it up with "Yay! Fan ownership! Woooo!" they need to outline how close to being self sufficient the club is and if they're not there yet how long it'll take and what they intend to do in the interim. All this face saving pish has to stop and they need to front up in a realistic and honest manner. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmmfc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Where are that South American consortium again?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 . As far as I can see, not too much has changed - although obviously the devil is in the detail. . . What has changed is that The Society do not have 5 years to get their act itogether before being presented with a football club to run. If the Club is now breaking even ( do you really think that is the case?) or they manage to sell on players all well and good. But if neither of these two things happen very soon, how does MFC/The Society fund the shortfall on a monthly basis until Budgets/Costs can be reduced sufficiently? What funds are currently held? No-one is telling us that basic fact. Les has said he will continue to fund the club for a couple of months, which suggests we are currently running in deficit. Hopefully the situation is more stable than many suspect. But previous advice (J McMahon at Society meeting end 2015) that a progression to profitability could not happen overnight and that a minimum reserve of £1m would be required by the Society certainly adds to the uncertainty. I agree the proposed end result and the manner in which MFC must operate remains the same, but the abrupt change of timescale brings fresh concerns. Some real, meaningful clarity is urgently required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Oh for fuxache, the society do not run the club! Stop with that pish The society could own the club. The board and management run the club . Like millions of people all over the country who own shares in small and large, even global companies , but they don't run said company 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 My humble apologies. The Society do not run the Club. My mistake. As major Shareholders they appoint a Board to do so and then The Society fund any shortfall which arises. Same concerns though re timescale and challenges. Is that correct? And yes, there are millions of shareholders in lots of Companies worldwide. But how many own 76% of the Company, don't receive any dividend and are expected to set up a monthly standing order to enable the company to function? Anyone owning 76% of a Company's shares has a massive say in how that company operates whether directly or indirectly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inthebasement Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Sorry but considering recent departures it sounds very like there have been boardroom politics at play here, and it is worrying to see the actual fans of the club resign first. I do not want to prejudge, but John Boyle held on to the club for years after he wanted rid of it as there was no other viable option without further damaging the club. Like him or not he stood by the club through transitional years. Concerning then that our petulant billionaire may be taking a 'you've made your bed' approach because, as others note above, he's bored of his toy. Not so much bored actually, my guess is the plebs have not be as grateful or compliant as envisaged from the sunbed. If so, and we ultimately fail, Les cannot escape responsibility for doing real damage to the community he arrived to assist. The 'turn around the club' rhetoric is way overblown, we have seen a few progressive and patchy step changes enabled by a cash injection we couldn't afford. That investment should be entirely written off in these circumstances - many fans have been alarmed by the post-Les extravagance in non-essential areas and the club should not suffer from the mistakes of a self-declared philanthropist. I am not a Society member, and it has seemed to me that the cause was hopeless in the absence of enough fans, cash or any real sense of crisis. How the new terrain is going to impact on these factors is entirely unclear. Steering Motherwell is not a simple matter of the club 'running at break even point' - that approach will see us relegated and downsized over time - football exists in a market where well managed and calculated risk is essential and the measure of ultimate success, and that goes for both buying and and deciding when to sell assets. There is no point in refusing to break budget if you are out the cup and facing relegation in a January transfer window. There is no point is selling a player player for £150,000 who will be worth a million in a year, but there are always risks. Having Les in the background was supposed to help us in this respect, but he has bailed without overseeing one decent sale. All fans of the club are owed a prompt, clear and honest assessment of the situation we find ourselves in.I have great faith in Alan Burrows and hope that in balancing the many factors at play he is able to put us fully in the picture as soon as possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 This backs up my theory that Les H wanted to help out but NEVER had any serious intentions of being a benefactor for ever more and a day. He said that from day 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Just a question for those who pay more attention than me, how much roughly would the club have to make each year to break even? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizoxy Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 It's the other way round, to break even they need to spend no more than what they take in. It seems that our problems tend to be more to do with cash flow at certain times of year. There are a number of big contracts expiring this year, which is a good opportunity to restructure our playing budget. We should be spending like a club that has 3000 regular home fans, and if that means we end up a championship team or lower then so be it. Unless someone wants to pour money into the club for the sake of it, this is reality. The well society is supposed to raise funds to provide a buffer for when the need arises, but the club also has a responsibility to budget properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 It's the other way round, to break even they need to spend no more than what they take in. It seems that our problems tend to be more to do with cash flow at certain times of year. There are a number of big contracts expiring this year, which is a good opportunity to restructure our playing budget. We should be spending like a club that has 3000 regular home fans, and if that means we end up a championship team or lower then so be it. Unless someone wants to pour money into the club for the sake of it, this is reality. The well society is supposed to raise funds to provide a buffer for when the need arises, but the club also has a responsibility to budget properly. I appreciate that. What I'm asking is to be at the level we're at just now, how much does it cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Just a question for those who pay more attention than me, how much roughly would the club have to make each year to break even? Not based on anything recent but we turned a profit of £541k in 2010/11 with a smaller £18k profit the year before. http://stv.tv/news/west-central/297806-motherwell-records-jump-in-profit-to-more-than-500000-in-latest-accounts/ A loss of £184,500 in 2012/13 on turnover of £5.2m http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26251662 A loss of £184,854 in 2013/14 on turnover of £4.5m http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2015/02/27/the-109th-annual-general-meeting/ It really all depends on how much we've managed to reduce costs by I suppose. The loss last year was by all accounts huge but that may well have been a one off based on re-structuring for long term gain. I'm not sure what our operating costs were. Also I seem to remember that a big part of that loss (£900k?) was a consequence of reduced prize money from league performance or broadcasting rights? I could be miles out on that though. Let's be generous and assume that last year was a one off (which is reasonable given prior seasons the £18k profit was the 2009/10 Gannon/Brown season and 5th place finish). You can obviously look at it and say "we were finishing 2nd in the league and still posting a loss", putting my positive hat on when it comes down to it we weren't that far off breaking even and not to drink from the kool-aid but a 200k player sale in each of those previous seasons would have seen us post a small profit . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Not based on anything recent but we turned a profit of £541k in 2010/11 with a smaller £18k profit the year before. http://stv.tv/news/west-central/297806-motherwell-records-jump-in-profit-to-more-than-500000-in-latest-accounts/ A loss of £184,500 in 2012/13 on turnover of £5.2m http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/26251662 A loss of £184,854 in 2013/13 on turnover of £4.5m http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2015/02/27/the-109th-annual-general-meeting/ It really all depends on how much we've managed to reduce costs by I suppose. The loss last year was by all accounts huge but that may well have been a one off based on re-structuring for long term gain. I'm not sure what our operating costs were. Let's be generous and assume that last year was a one off (which is reasonable given prior seasons the £18k profit was the 2009/10 Gannon/Brown season and 5th place finish). You can obviously look at it and say "we were finishing 2nd in the league and still posting a loss", putting my positive hat on when it comes down to it we weren't that far off breaking even and not to drink from the kool-aid but a 200k player sale in each of those previous seasons would have seen us post a small profit . So you're looking at close to £5m to break even? If our core support of 3000 each paid an average of £10 a month into the society (optimistic, I know), that would raise only around £360,000 a year. 2500 season tickets at average £300 raises only £750,000. Obviously you add in TV money and prize money and other revenue the club brings in but you start to wonder how a club like ours can ever break even and I'm impressed we even got as close as we did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Hopefully one of the "upgrades" that Les introduced was monthly Management Accounting in an effort produce accurate figures on a more regular basis. Waiting until year end figures are produced to effect any required changes to Budget/Control only adds to risk. Better to act as early as possible. Fingers crossed, when the 2015 and eventually 2016 year end Accounts are published, the Club's Accountant can provide a more up to date indication of how things are going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 So you're looking at close to £5m to break even? If our core support of 3000 each paid an average of £10 a month into the society (optimistic, I know), that would raise only around £360,000 a year. 2500 season tickets at average £300 raises only £750,000. Obviously you add in TV money and prize money and other revenue the club brings in but you start to wonder how a club like ours can ever break even and I'm impressed we even got as close as we did... I wouldn't go as high as £5m as a break even point but somewhere mid-£4m would probably be realistic but I'm not an accountant so that's the wild speculation of someone who failed his higher maths pre-lim. In any case I've just edited my post above. There was an article that suggests our income dropped by around 900k off the back of finishing 11th vs 2nd. It's a big assumption to make but assuming the club sort themselves out it's *not* a massive leap for them to break even or even turn a profit with a reasonably competitive budget. Bearing in mind the losses were But let's not sugar coat it, the club 100% needs to sort itself out in that respect. Edit: It's also worth mentioning that 3000 x £10 pm x 12 = £360,000pa would have more than covered the losses in the 12/13, 13/14 seasons. Though clearly it's ridiculous to expect the fans to bail the club out on an annual basis via the Society. That's just flat out enabling mis-management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Just to quantify my concerns. We have roughly 1200 Society Members, not all paying money in, with many refusing to pay any more. We have about 1,700 members of whom just under 500 are junior members if I'm right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 The relevant figure is the number of active members either paying monthly by direct debit or renewing their membership annually. The fact that we have this two tier membership status is another mess that they need to sort out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 The fact that we have this two tier membership status is another mess that they need to sort out. What do you mean by two tier? Adults and juniors? Or do you mean those those paying up their membership by intallments + those renewing their membership + those just joining V those paying nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 What do you mean by two tier? Adults and juniors? Or do you mean those those paying up their membership by intallments + those renewing their membership + those just joining? You have what I think is called "founder membership" status for those who paid a lump sum and then renew their membership annually, then you have those who signed up to monthly direct debits. I assumed when the direct debit scheme was rolled out those with founder membership status would have to move over to direct debit in order to stay "active" but this doesn't seem to be the case, creating this strange two tier membership system all because they didn't have the foresight to have the direct debit scheme set up from the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 You have what I think is called "founder membership" status for those who paid a lump sum and then renew their membership annually, then you have those who signed up to monthly direct debits. I assumed when the direct debit scheme was rolled out those with founder membership status would have to move over to direct debit in order to stay "active" but this doesn't seem to be the case, creating this strange two tier membership system all because they didn't have the foresight to have the direct debit scheme set up from the beginning. Members can pay their renewals via a variety of means, not just direct debit. I know a few folk who pay on an ad hoc basis as they can't commit to a regular monthly sum. I agree that the membership status issue is rather complex and does need clarification and simplification and I've made that very point to the Society. The current situation is a reflection of changes that have been made over time. The lack of a direct debit scheme at the outset? I don't know if you mean annual direct debits or payment by monthly installments. If its the former I don't know, but there would have been a reason. If its by monthly installments you mean, then this was raised at the initial meetings and the response given was that due to legal / regulatory reasons it wasn't possible at that stage. I very very much doubt if lack of foresight came into it at all. Sorry - you were probably at these meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underboyleheating Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 I think Les is coming up on BBC Reporting Scotland. It will be interesting to see what he has to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underboyleheating Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 He didn’t say anything we didn’t already know. Basically he said it’s time for Well fans to ‘step up’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 What has changed is that The Society do not have 5 years to get their act itogether before being presented with a football club to run. If the Club is now breaking even ( do you really think that is the case?) or they manage to sell on players all well and good. But if neither of these two things happen very soon, how does MFC/The Society fund the shortfall on a monthly basis until Budgets/Costs can be reduced sufficiently? What funds are currently held? No-one is telling us that basic fact. Les has said he will continue to fund the club for a couple of months, which suggests we are currently running in deficit. Hopefully the situation is more stable than many suspect. But previous advice (J McMahon at Society meeting end 2015) that a progression to profitability could not happen overnight and that a minimum reserve of £1m would be required by the Society certainly adds to the uncertainty. I agree the proposed end result and the manner in which MFC must operate remains the same, but the abrupt change of timescale brings fresh concerns. Some real, meaningful clarity is urgently required. "The Society" isn't running the club, and there was never any intention that they would. The Society owns the club. The Board will still be running it and the members will get a say on who is on the Board. Except that might not happen until Les gets his money back regardless of the shareholding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 "The Society" isn't running the club, and there was never any intention that they would. The Society owns the club. The Board will still be running it and the members will get a say on who is on the Board. Except that might not happen until Les gets his money back regardless of the shareholding. My mistaken use of words as covered in earlier reply to which I would ask you to have a look at if you will. Running/owning aside, with a 76% stake I don't really think the Society through their Board will be far removed from every day involvement. The points about the timing and day to day financing still apply, People being on both Boards might just be another indicator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmmfc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 My issue with the Well Society is that having joined at the start, I've only once been asked to pay my renewal fee and that was 1 year in. This has contributed to effectively losing active members. Someone in the Society needs to sort this out although I fear many have just given up on the Society. 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.