Club AGM

[dennyc]

36 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The loss has fuck all to do with money spent on the ground, how many times does this need to be said. The ground improvement were paid from a £3 million 20 year interest free  loan from the Scottish Govt. The money could only be spent on facilities. So at most the payments on the loan cost £150,000 the remaining £1,450,000 loss has fuck all to do with the ground and pitch improvements. 

Careful! you are letting facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. And one that just keeps growing. Any more of it and you will be carted off to Area 51 to join Elvis

[steelboy]

11 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The loss has fuck all to do with money spent on the ground, how many times does this need to be said. The ground improvement were paid from a £3 million 20 year interest free  loan from the Scottish Govt. The money could only be spent on facilities. So at most the payments on the loan cost £150,000 the remaining £1,450,000 loss has fuck all to do with the ground and pitch improvements. 

It still counts as part of the loss in the annual accounts. That's not how P+L, it still counts as expenditure even if you use borrowed money. 

Also I don't think it's true that it was only for infrastructure. Covid loans to every other business were used to cover wages. It's also a bit of a joke that we have to pay this back but the SRU got a £15 million grant no strings attached. Working class Vs middle class sport.....

[Villageman]

On 2/25/2024 at 5:28 PM, santheman said:

Something I've always wanted to know but never really took the trouble to find out is how much flows into the WS coffers on a monthly basis from DDs.

It would give us some idea of where we are and where we need to be.

Just in case you haven't seen my post on another topic. In response to the Clubs latest email I have requested this information.

[El Grew]

On 2/25/2024 at 6:58 PM, Kmcalpin said:

Try contacting Sally Hall. The answer to those 2 questions might go a long way to deciding what investment route to go down. 

That’s it right there in a nutshell.

[Villageman]

4 hours ago, El Grew said:

That’s it right there in a nutshell.

I have received the info asked, done some work on them, produced a spreadsheet added my comments and suggestions. Added too that the spreadsheet should be passed to the team working on the alternative to outside investors and it should in my opinion be made available to WS members. Not my prerogative to publish on here. Wait and see what happens next.

[StAndrew7]

4 minutes ago, Villageman said:

I have received the info asked, done some work on them, produced a spreadsheet added my comments and suggestions. Added too that the spreadsheet should be passed to the team working on the alternative to outside investors and it should in my opinion be made available to WS members. Not my prerogative to publish on here. Wait and see what happens next.

Out of interest, have you got experience in this kind of thing; corporate finance/accounting etc.? Just curious, not wanting to belittle in any way; think it's great you've taken the impetus here.

[Villageman]

36 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Out of interest, have you got experience in this kind of thing; corporate finance/accounting etc.? Just curious, not wanting to belittle in any way; think it's great you've taken the impetus here.

Not corporate finance at its highest level. Business qualification before retirement 20+years ago Admin and Statistics in Manufacturing. Shop Floor to end customer at the lowest economic cost to all involved in the supply chain and other major projects. Quite proud in my day to be called the "Gatekeeper" Continued to use these skills with the voluntary organisation including the much maligned on here Bowling Club. Wasn't my plan to take the impetus just preparing myself with as many facts as I could use to make a decision on how to vote on the future of a Club I have supported for 70+ years.

[dennyc]

Good work

I can see no reason why the monthly income of the Society from Member subscriptions should be a trade secret. Would a figure not be routinely included in the Annual Accounts anyway? From memory I think an amount was openly quoted during previous discussions. Cannot be sure of that figure though so hesitant to quote a figure, and it will be out of date anyway.

To allow folk to consider whether the Society alone can continue to provide the financial backup required,  the current income level is information required to arrive at a decision re the need for additional investment  We have been told what the Club's shortfall is likely to be on a worst case scenario so it is a simple calculation to see how much is required each year to cover that potential shortfall, without draining existing balances. 

[Kmcalpin]

15 minutes ago, dennyc said:

To allow folk to consider whether the Society alone can continue to provide the financial backup required,  the current income level is information required to arrive at a decision re the need for additional investment  We have been told what the Club's shortfall is likely to be on a worst case scenario so it is a simple calculation to see how much is required each year to cover that potential shortfall, without draining existing balances. 

I fully agree Denny. When the time comes, if it ever does, to consider alternative proposals in detail, we need to have as many hard facts and informed estimates as possible. 

I don't know what the current figure is, but a few years ago, monthly income through subscriptions was about £12K per month. It may well have risen considerably since then as membership has increased and original joiners switched to monthly subscriptions. 

[dennyc]

9 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

I fully agree Denny. When the time comes, if it ever does, to consider alternative proposals in detail, we need to have as many hard facts and informed estimates as possible. 

I don't know what the current figure is, but a few years ago, monthly income through subscriptions was about £12K per month. It may well have risen considerably since then as membership has increased and original joiners switched to monthly subscriptions. 

Thanks Kmcalpin. That is the figure I had in mind. Translates to around £150k per annum before expenses or donations. Hopefully that figure has increased as it suggests a massive increase is essential to cover potential shortfalls without diluting funds. I'm pretty sure up to date figures will be made available.

[Villageman]

Agree with what has been said. I repeat spent a considerable time yesterday working on current WS statistics.. returned them to the Club asking more questions, making comments, and suggestions. I made the point that The Information given to me has to be made available to WS members, possibly my work too. I believe I do not have the authority to divulge this information certainly not on a Forum such as this. I could be given permission to divulge the information that still leaves the means to do it. I also asked when the AGM was.

[El Grew]

Information on the Well Society Ltd is a matter of public record on the Financial Conduct Authority Mutuals Public Register at: www.mutuals.fca.org.uk

The most up-to-date record is for the financial year end 30/09/22 and recorded the membership as 2,635. Previous years records show membership numbers as:

30/09/21 -  2,614

30/09/20 - 2,455

30/09/18 -  2,056

30/09/17 -   1,400

30/09/14 - 922

[joewarkfanclub]

7 minutes ago, El Grew said:

Information on the Well Society Ltd is a matter of public record on the Financial Conduct Authority Mutuals Public Register at: www.mutuals.fca.org.uk

The most up-to-date record is for the financial year end 30/09/22 and recorded the membership as 2,635. Previous years records show membership numbers as:

30/09/21 -  2,614

30/09/20 - 2,455

30/09/18 -  2,056

30/09/17 -   1,400

30/09/14 - 922

Was sure Id read a communication from the club that as a result of "the video" that we were now up to 3,600 members. However, checking back the feeds, I cant see it.

Anyone confirm or refute that?

[Kmcalpin]

I thought I'd read a few weeks ago that it had now climbed to around 3,800. It may have climbed further still in the last week or so, as the investment issue grabbed members' attention. What I don't know is the adult/junior/low income split, and that will make a difference to monthly income. Monthly income may be increasing as we write.

[joewarkfanclub]

2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

I thought I'd read a few weeks ago that it had now climbed to around 3,800. It may have climbed further still in the last week or so, as the investment issue grabbed members' attention. What I don't know is the adult/junior/low income split, and that will make a difference to monthly income. Monthly income may be increasing as we write.

3800 may well have been the number. My short term memory isnt what it was! 😆

[Villageman]

3 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

3800 may well have been the number. My short term memory isnt what it was! 😆

3800 iapprox is the figure I have been given. It does not come anywhere near telling the facts.

Sorry if this makes the issue more unclear.

[wellfan]

28 minutes ago, Villageman said:

3800 iapprox is the figure I have been given. It does not come anywhere near telling the facts.

Sorry if this makes the issue more unclear.

In an ideal world, we'd have these 3800 members paying at least £10 per month by direct debit, which is the most popular category according to the WS website. Basic maths shows that these numbers would generate almost £500K annually. However, this is not the case, as many members do not contribute monthly by direct debit, others contribute less or more per month, some contribute sporadically, and some do not contribute at all anymore. I'm sure there are other permutations/reasons; however, it would be a masterstroke if the WS could produce an initiative to get every current member to uplift to a monthly direct debit of at least £10. It takes minutes to do. If that happened, those already on a tenner may wish to uplift to a score, and so on. It sounds simple, but it probably isn't, or is it?

[santheman]

41 minutes ago, Villageman said:

3800 iapprox is the figure I have been given. It does not come anywhere near telling the facts.

Sorry if this makes the issue more unclear.

That's the figure I've got as well.

To put it into perspective, if we could get every member to contribute £10 on average a month  (and I know that figure includes junior steel members and people who don't contribute monthly and people who contribute substantially more) that would equate to £456000 pa.

Could we achieve that sort of figure, probably not but not impossible either. Depends on how deep fans want to dig into their pockets during a cost of living crisis.

Would that be enough to safeguard us in the medium to long term.

Edit. Wellfan beat me to it.

[wellfan]

3 minutes ago, santheman said:

That's the figure I've got as well.

To put it into perspective, if we could get every member to contribute £10 on average a month  (and I know that figure includes junior steel members and people who don't contribute monthly and people who contribute substantially more) that would equate to £456000 pa.

Could we achieve that sort of figure, probably not but not impossible either. Depends on how deep fans want to dig into their pockets during a cost of living crisis.

Would that be enough to safeguard us in the medium to long term.

Edit. Wellfan beat me to it.

Aye. Great minds, etc.

[Villageman]

3 minutes ago, santheman said:

That's the figure I've got as well.

To put it into perspective, if we could get every member to contribute £10 on average a month  (and I know that figure includes junior steel members and people who don't contribute monthly and people who contribute substantially more) that would equate to £456000 pa.

Could we achieve that sort of figure, probably not but not impossible either. Depends on how deep fans want to dig into their pockets during a cost of living crisis.

Would that be enough to safeguard us in the medium to long term.

 

To reply and In fairness to all commenting on this subject there is too many assumptions being made.

Assume makes an Ass out of Me and U as the old saying goes.

I have now a further update from Sally in response to my original email's comments and whilst it answers them in part I would consider at least some to be unsatisfactory and raises more questions. The board are now working on the issues I highlighted. Those issues existed long before Investment surfaced in my opinion.  

My comment that the WS members should be aware of the points I raised has received neither a yes or no.

I am beginning to feel guilty on holding on to this knowledge I am now aware of, but at the same time I don't want to be labelled some type of trouble maker.

Suggestions as to how to make it available privately would be welcome.  

[Stuwell2]

59 minutes ago, Villageman said:

 

I am beginning to feel guilty on holding on to this knowledge I am now aware of, but at the same time I don't want to be labelled some type of trouble maker.

Suggestions as to how to make it available privately would be welcome.  

No need for guilt, any WS member could email the society and ask as you did. 

[Speedie85]

Good evening folks

Thought I would pop on to share my view on the discussion around membership numbers and contributions. I think what @Villageman is referring to above is that whilst communications of The Well Society will focus primarily on the overall number of members which now total 3,800. That only tells part of the story.

• 700 of those members are under 16 and signed up to a Junior Steel membership with a breakeven annual fee
• 1,500 of those are adults who are regularly contributing at an average rate of £10 per month
• 1,600 of those are adults who are no longer contributing monthly

I think the concern then lies that in order to fill the £750,000 operating blackhole outlined at the AGM last week. The requirement would be that the 1,500 contributing members would need to up their contributions to an average value of £40 per month. i think we all know that this will not be possible but I am not so certain that is the requirement.

We do need to remember that the £750,000 gap is based on a number of assumptions. Namely that we will finish 10th in the Premiership, we will not progress beyond the Group Stage of the League Cup, we will be knocked out in the 4th Round of the Scottish Cup and that there will be no player sales. It is not quite the worst case scenario that we can face but it is not far off it. Finishing further up the league, going further in the cups and any transfers out would cut that gap.

Any incoming investor will not want to be handing over money to simply plug the operating blackhole. They will be here to meet their own ends. They will want to develop their own strategy, run the club more efficiently and increase the revenue. Would it not be possible for Motherwell supporters and partners with the right knowledge, skills and expertise to develop and execute our own strategy to deliver improvement? I think it is possible and The Well Society board have started to work on what this could look like.

Going back to The Well Society membership. There is far more we can do around encouraging the 1,600 members who are not contributing regularly to set up a direct debit. We will also want to ask the question to those already contributing to increase their monthly amount where they can. I have been heartened to see a number of you actively considering this. I would note that any increase in subscriptions by our members must be met by The Well Society board upping the standard of our communications, the level of transparency and the value which our members feel of being part of the Society. We have been actively working on this since the turn of the year. I would encourage members to join us either at the face-to-face events and fundraising session on Thursday night or throughout the day this coming Sunday where we are hosting Zoom sessions where we will share our new operating model and deliverables.  

This is before we even get to the large number of season ticket holders who are not Society members, those who live locally who have a soft spot for the club but we haven't asked the question of joining the Society and the opportunities we have to grow our membership base internationally.

[wellfan]

34 minutes ago, Speedie85 said:

Going back to The Well Society membership. There is far more we can do around encouraging the 1,600 members who are not contributing regularly to set up a direct debit. We will also want to ask the question to those already contributing to increase their monthly amount where they can.

Thanks for the helpful post. Very eye-opening.

I'd say there has to be action on the 1600 not contributing by monthly DD before asking the 1500 with a monthly DD to contribute more. 

[Villageman]

Thanks Speedie85. That certainly takes the pressure off me to release the Information I have gained.

Some other points.

The average contribution of the 1500 Pledges is £10  £15000 pm £180000 pa. 

To meet the £500k extra (I think quoted) the average monthly contribution made by the 1500 would need to be £40 This would take the annual income from the 180000 to 720000. I would maintain that is not feasible.

The reasons given for the 1600 non paying is death, just stopped paying for whatever reason. former players that have moved on. In my opinion these categories should be removed from the roll of Members. Again in my opinion I take the view that telling members and the outside world that we publish levels that include these categories is verging on immoral. Also included are members who paid £300 lump sum back in 2012 ? and have not paid since, Junior members now aged 16+ and honorary members. Resolving these categories may be more difficult but has to be tackled. Replacing the 1600 non payers with monthly payers would mean the average contribution requires to be £20. Might just be feasible but I don't under estimate the effort needed. Curious how you get honorary membership. The Club have said that they have approached the non payers to re-commence contributions.

Further note WS AGM is planned for latest June this year All adults aged 16 and over are eligible to vote.

 

Edited February 28 by Villageman
Mis Type

[joewarkfanclub]

3 hours ago, Speedie85 said:

Good evening folks

Thought I would pop on to share my view on the discussion around membership numbers and contributions. I think what @Villageman is referring to above is that whilst communications of The Well Society will focus primarily on the overall number of members which now total 3,800. That only tells part of the story.

• 700 of those members are under 16 and signed up to a Junior Steel membership with a breakeven annual fee
• 1,500 of those are adults who are regularly contributing at an average rate of £10 per month
• 1,600 of those are adults who are no longer contributing monthly

I think the concern then lies that in order to fill the £750,000 operating blackhole outlined at the AGM last week. The requirement would be that the 1,500 contributing members would need to up their contributions to an average value of £40 per month. i think we all know that this will not be possible but I am not so certain that is the requirement.

We do need to remember that the £750,000 gap is based on a number of assumptions. Namely that we will finish 10th in the Premiership, we will not progress beyond the Group Stage of the League Cup, we will be knocked out in the 4th Round of the Scottish Cup and that there will be no player sales. It is not quite the worst case scenario that we can face but it is not far off it. Finishing further up the league, going further in the cups and any transfers out would cut that gap.

Any incoming investor will not want to be handing over money to simply plug the operating blackhole. They will be here to meet their own ends. They will want to develop their own strategy, run the club more efficiently and increase the revenue. Would it not be possible for Motherwell supporters and partners with the right knowledge, skills and expertise to develop and execute our own strategy to deliver improvement? I think it is possible and The Well Society board have started to work on what this could look like.

Going back to The Well Society membership. There is far more we can do around encouraging the 1,600 members who are not contributing regularly to set up a direct debit. We will also want to ask the question to those already contributing to increase their monthly amount where they can. I have been heartened to see a number of you actively considering this. I would note that any increase in subscriptions by our members must be met by The Well Society board upping the standard of our communications, the level of transparency and the value which our members feel of being part of the Society. We have been actively working on this since the turn of the year. I would encourage members to join us either at the face-to-face events and fundraising session on Thursday night or throughout the day this coming Sunday where we are hosting Zoom sessions where we will share our new operating model and deliverables.  

This is before we even get to the large number of season ticket holders who are not Society members, those who live locally who have a soft spot for the club but we haven't asked the question of joining the Society and the opportunities we have to grow our membership base internationally.

Thanks for this information.

As a contributing member I may be willing to increase my monthly contribution if the WS continue to hold a majority share and have control of the club.

If an outside investor came in and wanted to take a majority shareholding and that was voted through, fair enough.

However, I would not longer feel compelled to contribute financially.

I would suggest that I would not be the only on to feel this way.

So there needs to he an understanding with any investor that the money coming in from Society members cannot be taken for granted should they try and force through majority shareholding.

There would undoubtedly be a further gap in funding they would need to meet in those circumstances