mio Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Very concerned for our future. We don't have the fan base and the good supporters we have are in general....skint, and cant afford to pay any more than they are already!! I look forward to our local derby in a few years v Wishaw Juniors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin 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 is a point I've made before. I've enquired about this and been told that I could continue to pay annually or now monthly and the latter is the option I've chosen. However members, especially the original ones should be contacted individually to clarify this position. Not everyone has the time or inclination to approach the Society for clarification. I daresay there are quite a few members like you who are still waiting to be contacted. Its all very well burying away advice in long notes or answers but they have to be up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 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. I meant monthly direct debit scheme. I don't doubt what you are saying is accurate but I find that hard to believe. The Foundation of Hearts didn't deem to have any issue having such a monthly direct debit scheme in place from the outset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 The whole fan ownership concept and hence the WS has been an ill thought out, badly communicated, implemented and administered shambles since Leeanne Dempster 1st floated the idea it wad a non starter from day 1. Now we are at the point where Les Hutchison appears to have got bored and bailed out and left the WS to it, does anybody really think that as owners they can run the club sucessfully i dont they give me the fear big time. Do they have a business plan to take the club forward, get fans back to games, maximise reveues etc because 1200 or so monthly direct debits just wont cut it. Certain clubs could make a go of fan ownership but in the premiership we are not one of them, even Hearts with 10k plus members needs additional investment from wealthy individuals to make it feasible. If we were an Albion rovers or a Clyde then the number of members we have could work but does anybody honestly think that on the members the WS has that we can maintain our status as a top club in Scotland i dont and i fear that unless we get some wealthy individual or consortium onboard to buy LH's shares then we will become a league 1 or 2 side very quickly assuming we survive at all. The concept of fan ownership is a good one and if it had been planned and implemented correctly who knows it might have been feasible but where we are now is not good and i fear for the future if we dont get another Hutchison or Boyle onboard quickly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelEdge Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 I didn't join the Well Society for years after it started, but signed up around the time Hutchison took over, if I remember correctly. Genuinely think some people thought when Hutchison took over that we were ok again, the sugar daddy had arrived to bank roll us. He was very clear from the outset that this is what was going to happen eventually. Think some people had their heads in the sand on that fact which I actually expected. Yes, it's concerning it's happened a lot quicker and there are questions, but the fans were always going to need to step up and contribute, even if it's £5 or £10 a month. 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. I've seen quite a few people say this. It appeared they weren't members either, so it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're the one that needs to pay a fiver each month to help make it a success. Everyone that can afford it and wants the best for the club needs to. Also seen folk saying they don't want to be part of running and owning the club or that fans shouldn't be involved. A bit ridiculous. I get the impression some people think thousands of fans will all have a vote to make a decision on what contractor to use for stewarding or whether we should accept a £350k offer for Louis Moult. You won't be running the club, the appointed board (some of which will be fans, as has been the case already) and chairman will be. Ultimately, it's the Well Society or... well, who knows eh? Certainly doesn't look like a millionaire or billionaire will swoop in, and we don't really want some unknown consortium swooping in, do we? If you can, you need to take a bit of responsibility in as much as contributing a little each month. Don't wait for a potential Well Worth Saving 2 which doomsayers seem to think is just around the corner. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 The whole fan ownership concept and hence the WS has been an ill thought out, badly communicated, implemented and administered shambles since Leeanne Dempster 1st floated the idea it wad a non starter from day 1. Now we are at the point where Les Hutchison appears to have got bored and bailed out and left the WS to it, does anybody really think that as owners they can run the club sucessfully i dont they give me the fear big time. Do they have a business plan to take the club forward, get fans back to games, maximise reveues etc because 1200 or so monthly direct debits just wont cut it. Certain clubs could make a go of fan ownership but in the premiership we are not one of them, even Hearts with 10k plus members needs additional investment from wealthy individuals to make it feasible. If we were an Albion rovers or a Clyde then the number of members we have could work but does anybody honestly think that on the members the WS has that we can maintain our status as a top club in Scotland i dont and i fear that unless we get some wealthy individual or consortium onboard to buy LH's shares then we will become a league 1 or 2 side very quickly assuming we survive at all. The concept of fan ownership is a good one and if it had been planned and implemented correctly who knows it might have been feasible but where we are now is not good and i fear for the future if we dont get another Hutchison or Boyle onboard quickly. Surely it's not the 1200 direct debits that are financing the club, it is gate receipts, prize money and sponsorship, the direct debits create the buffer for the lean times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian 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. you do not have to pay an annual renewal, if you dont and have paid up a full membership, you are still a member with voting right. The society thanks you for your significant contribution to date and 'invites' you to consider setting up one or more options to contribute more if you are able to. the orignal annual renewal was paid to the club for the 'benefits' package from the club' given to the various members levels. at one of the society meetings it was recognised that this money was essentially lost to the society , so a vote was passed to seek a change in those terms, I dont recall the exact detail as higher level members required some benefits for their investment, but the outcome was that the annual renewal fees were to go to the society funds. around the same time, a move to monthly payments was proposed and eventually kicked in, it hadn't been enabled at the start, as there was advice given that, as an industrial provident society any regular payments could be seen as income (?), hopefully someone will clarify if I'm inaccurate , but it was certainly implied that the annual 'renewal' fee, any ad hoc donations or regular monthly payments by existing members now goes towards your own membership fund and will eventually move you up to the next level when your ongoing contributions achieve that target. so if you were an £300 Steel member and you contribute £5 pm then eventually you would have funded a Claret level membership .....and so on. But for me anything in the hope that the fund small or large has always been there to support the club when required, much like the modern day crowdfunder appeals, contribute what you can to make somethign happen, theoretically we hav eall bought into the need for club to exist, surprising so many who have the ability, downright oppose the idea, but that is their right to choose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Surely it's not the 1200 direct debits that are financing the club, it is gate receipts, prize money and sponsorship, the direct debits create the buffer for the lean times. Basically this. OK a large part of it will be down to them selling Stevie May but if St Johnstone can turn a profit with I'd be interested to know exactly how much folk think that Steve Brown is putting into them out his own pocket. I'm sure the Browns are wealthy but are they really off the radar wealthy? It's one of the Society's major failings that they've allowed this idea that the it's the Society that will be funding the club to be perpetuated. The club will run as it always has financed by gate receipts and the usual revenues it's up to the board of directors to run the club with prudence whether they're actually capable of that is a whole other matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Surely it's not the 1200 direct debits that are financing the club, it is gate receipts, prize money and sponsorship, the direct debits create the buffer for the lean times. That's my understanding of how it works. I also think that - as usual - there is a lot of panicking over nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Surely it's not the 1200 direct debits that are financing the club, it is gate receipts, prize money and sponsorship, the direct debits create the buffer for the lean times. I know that I was referring to the number of members the WS currently has and making the point that the revenue generated by them won't provide a decent buffer for the lean times, another 3 or 4 thousand paying members and it would be fit for purpose, but as I said given our fanbase that won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Surely it's not the 1200 direct debits that are financing the club, it is gate receipts, prize money and sponsorship, the direct debits create the buffer for the lean times. Exactly this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 That's my understanding of how it works. I also think that - as usual - there is a lot of panicking over nothing. ...and exactly this too. There is cause for question and concern...but not panic like some of the posters here are exhibiting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 . It's one of the Society's major failings that they've allowed this idea that the it's the Society that will be funding the club to be perpetuated. The club will run as it always has financed by gate receipts and the usual revenues it's up to the board of directors to run the club with prudence whether they're actually capable of that is a whole other matter Agreed, in an ideal world that's the way it would work. Unfortunately the situation for several years has not been ideal and the Society has been funding the Club, almost from day one, to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds. How much has been repaid and is the current balance held by the Society anywhere near the figure of £1m which Jim McMahon (in his professional opinion) stated was the minimum sum required to make the whole set up feasible? He also confirmed that the vision of short term support had proven optimistic and those temporary loans were now regarded as medium term loans. If the Club is almost at the stage of operating at a profit (see comments on BBC website) that will help and support might not be required right away. However there are periods in the year when income can dry up for any number of reasons. Who do the Club turn to if, as some suspect, the Society coffers are almost empty? Yes, the same boring old question! But not one person from the Society Board will volunteer what the present balance is and at what rate the monies are growing each month. That is worrying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Agreed, in an ideal world that's the way it would work. Unfortunately the situation for several years has not been ideal and the Society has been funding the Club, almost from day one, to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds. How much has been repaid and is the current balance held by the Society anywhere near the figure of £1m which Jim McMahon (in his professional opinion) stated was the minimum sum required to make the whole set up feasible? He also confirmed that the vision of short term support had proven optimistic and those temporary loans were now regarded as medium term loans. If the Club is almost at the stage of operating at a profit (see comments on BBC website) that will help and support might not be required right away. However there are periods in the year when income can dry up for any number of reasons. Who do the Club turn to if, as some suspect, the Society coffers are almost empty? Yes, the same boring old question! But not one person from the Society Board will volunteer what the present balance is and at what rate the monies are growing each month. That is worrying. Agree on all of that. 100% Hadn't seen the BBC comments from Hutchison that we're close to breaking even. If that is the case then it's definitely a positive however as you say how that fits in with the historic expenditure & loans I don't know. Also if that's a break even in terms of running costs without factoring in transfers (Erwin, Murphy) then again it's positive. If the club want to get people on board though they need to show that they can work with a viable budget and go from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 But not one person from the Society Board will volunteer what the present balance is and at what rate the monies are growing each month. That is worrying. At the public meeting last November it was stated by a Society representative that monthly contributions, from all sources, was running at about £8,000 - £9,000 monthly. Just read Les Hutchison's piece on the BBC website. In it he says that we have 1689 members who pay an average of £5.75 monthly. Now I'm no mathematician but reckon that translates into a monthly income of £9,711 - I suspect those figures are a week or two old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Who do the Club turn to if, as some suspect, the Society coffers are almost empty? Yes, the same boring old question! But not one person from the Society Board will volunteer what the present balance is and at what rate the monies are growing each month. That is worrying. Apart from the initial cock up when an error in the Society provisions meant we had to buy shares, the Society only lends money to the club, so it should never suffer from empty coffers. In fact, as funds are paid from members, the coffers should see a steady growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 At the same meeting it was agreed that the up to date balance and growth would be published monthly. Where are they? Also the figure quoted as the monthly increase was argued back and forward within the panel. By no means convincing and that is why I asked for the correct figures to be published. Les's figures are a .....very recent.....step forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUNKspex Posted March 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 I'm with Burn Broomfield, a strong wiff of Pontius Pilate about this. Letting the little people self implode while he stands off afar. The reality of a Scottish football club and how it can be a money back hole has slowly dawned. Sadly I think Derek Weir leaving is intrinsically linked to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUNKspex Posted March 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 This is what I asked a couple of weeks ago and was rubbished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 At the public meeting last November it was stated by a Society representative that monthly contributions, from all sources, was running at about £8,000 - £9,000 monthly. Just read Les Hutchison's piece on the BBC website. In it he says that we have 1689 members who pay an average of £5.75 monthly. Now I'm no mathematician but reckon that translates into a monthly income of £9,711 - I suspect those figures are a week or two old. That's a fair point. From Les's comments we can work out an estimate we can work out monthly income. Now if only we could estimate monthly outgoings we would be in a position to calculate monthly growth. From what we know there is one salary (for the admin assistant). I think Les was meeting half of that cost but is that to continue after he rides off into the sunset? There might also be ongoing costs for promotion materials, admin expenses, professional fees and I recall mention of Insurance. From there all we then need is the starting balance to work out the present situation. Now, that sum might be fairly substantial (again hopefully) but we simply don't know. But let's assume a build up of £8500 per month (and rising hopefully) or around £100k per year. Is that enough to cover, say, the payment of players' for a couple of months if short term problems crop up? It's not that long ago that MFC were forced to sell off Jamie Murphy on the cheap to meet that month's wages. The Board's words, not mine. The answer is fairly simple though. if the Board supply the information their would be no need for any speculation whatsoever. Look, as you were at the meeting. you'll know that I asked for financial information to be made public in the hope that positive news might encourage folk to join/return to the Society. Is that unreasonable? Am I pissed off that promises made at the meeting have not been kept? Yes, and I don't think that is unreasonable either. But this thread is supposed to be about Les. So can you tell me why you think he has chosen now to move on, bearing in mind his comments that MFC is almost at the stage of breaking even and that the structural and personnel changes made have had a positive effect on finances? The only concern seems to be the slow take up of Society membership, which can reasonably be expected to grow over time and as MFC is seen to be on an even keel. Why not see out the five years, as promised, and influence matters from the inside? My own view, and it is speculation, is that the Society situation coupled with the fact he has had to provide MFC additional funds on a regular basis has really got to him. Perhaps he sees walking away as a blunt, and probably final attempt, to force fans and local businesses to join up. Perhaps Derek Weir's departure also played a part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 The answer is fairly simple though. if the Board supply the information their would be no need for any speculation whatsoever. Look, as you were at the meeting. you'll know that I asked for financial information to be made public in the hope that positive news might encourage folk to join/return to the Society. Is that unreasonable? Am I pissed off that promises made at the meeting have not been kept? Yes, and I don't think that is unreasonable either. But this thread is supposed to be about Les. So can you tell me why you think he has chosen now to move on, bearing in mind his comments that MFC is almost at the stage of breaking even and that the structural and personnel changes made have had a positive effect on finances? The only concern seems to be the slow take up of Society membership, which can reasonably be expected to grow over time and as MFC is seen to be on an even keel. Why not see out the five years, as promised, and influence matters from the inside? My own view, and it is speculation, is that the Society situation coupled with the fact he has had to provide MFC additional funds on a regular basis has really got to him. Perhaps he sees walking away as a blunt, and probably final attempt, to force fans and local businesses to join up. Perhaps Derek Weir's departure also played a part. Your points about the Society's finances are well made and I agree with them. The Society will probably need to provide a short term annual financial cushion to the club, which would be repayable. Now, if the Society raised say £100 k per year, there could well be a shortfall in year 1 and that would be the hardest year. In year 2 the Society would have say £200k; in year 3 £300k and so on. So as time went on the short term financial float would be more manageable. Why is Les Hutchison moving on? I have no idea - there could be any number of factors. As to what happens, a lot will depend on what is contained in the legal agreement and again I've no idea whatsoever about that. However, under the old 5 year timescale, the Society would have had 4/5 years to build up a financial reserves presumably to about £500k. If Les moves on now that won't be possible and so I hope that suitable adjustments of some kind will be agreed. I'm sure thats an oversimplication but thats how I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Apart from the initial cock up when an error in the Society provisions meant we had to buy shares, the Society only lends money to the club, so it should never suffer from empty coffers. In fact, as funds are paid from members, the coffers should see a steady growth. But that's the whole point. Although it was originally planned that any funding would be short term, to be returned to the Society as soon as possible, that has not worked out and the outstanding Loans are now "medium term" per Jim McMahon. No advice to what term that actually means. If it had worked out as planned, there could be upwards of £500k sitting in the Society account available to help the Club when needed. The "empty coffers" refers to the fact that, although the Society may be owed a substantial sum from MFC, we have no idea how much ready cash is currently available for support. It might be a sizeable sum, but why not just tell us and put the speculation to bed? Agreed, monthly contributions will be growing the balance available. So why not keep us advised as to how that is going....in financial terms and not mere numbers of active members. This is particularly relevant given Les has taken a giant step backwards. See my previous post. Oh, and the outstanding loans are not secured or protected in any way...unlike any monies owed to Les, John Boyle, Derek Weir and Jim McMahon. If a disaster were to happen ( hopefully unlikely as we are told MFC are close to breaking even) the Society would have to stand in line with other Creditors hoping for a return of so many pence in the pound. That was an oversight by the Society Board which is unlikely to be rectified soon, although we are told it is "in hand". When are the existing Loans likely to be repaid? Who knows! When money came in from the sale of Erwin (and the add on from Murphy?) the funds were either required elsewhere or used to repay part of the additional finance provided by Les. Maybe some repayment has been made in the past, but is that cash still available or was it used to help fund the final payment to MFC which Les insisted upon? I agree, it is fantastic that the Society have been able to support the Club through hard times. But the Society funds are not unlimited and with the Club unable to repay the existing loans at the present time I would just like to clarify how much support the Society would be able to provide, say in the upcoming close season. Not an unreasonable request I would suggest. And before you ask. I am an existing Society member and I do like the concept of the Society providing support when required and I do wish the whole thing can work as proposed. I would just like some clarity before contributing further. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 . Why is Les Hutchison moving on? I have no idea - there could be any number of factors. As to what happens, a lot will depend on what is contained in the legal agreement and again I've no idea whatsoever about that. However, under the old 5 year timescale, the Society would have had 4/5 years to build up a financial reserves presumably to about £500k. If Les moves on now that won't be possible and so I hope that suitable adjustments of some kind will be agreed. I'm sure thats an oversimplication but thats how I see it. Glad we're not really that far apart in our thinking. Re the legal agreement and the revised repayment schedule. Let's hope it will allow the Club scope for repayment of some of the monies due to the Society, rather than concentrating solely on the repayment of Les and John Boyle. Their Loans, after all, are secured which should provide them with the comfort required to be patient. That would at least assist to build up Society funds for emergency use. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Anyone considered Les maybe got wind of these boards, read through them and went "tae fuck with yous then" 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 He got involved with us after a period of ill health. Could this be a factor in him getting out sooner than planned? 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.