St Johnstone Take Over

[FirParkCornerExile]

I see it's being reported St Johnstone are in the final stages of a take over by an American businessman. Im just curious if Motherwell were subject to decent investment take over but it required the cessation of fan ownership how many of you would go for it?

[joewarkfanclub]

Personally prefer that the Well Society keep a majority share of 51%. Happy with any outward investment up to that point. That way we can, in theory, stop any decisions we dont feel are in the best interests of the club. Whether any investor would accept that or not is another matter.

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Personally prefer that the Well Society keep a majority share of 51%. Happy with any outward investment up to that point. That way we can, in theory, stop any decisions we dont feel are in the best interests of the club. Whether any investor would accept that or not is another matter.

In reality we aren't going to get major investment without ownership. Playing devil's advocate here.  So if we stuck to the fan based model and couldn't retain our SPFL status cos we couldn't compete with clubs who have ownership investment would you change that view ?

[weeyin]

I'm not sure there's much benefit to owning most Premiership clubs. You're unlikely to make a profit unless you are selling the assets. Clubs our size, and bigger, that have investors all seem to be in pretty significant debt - except it's the owners they owe money to rather than the banks.

A football club in most cases is an expensive hobby, so the best case is for a wealthy individual to invest for fun. Then you run the risk of disaster when they get bored or skint (or in the case of Gretna, die).

Unless we were going bankrupt, I wouldn't want to give up fan ownership.

 

[wellsince75]

The idea of the society chimes nicely.  A club that cares about the local community and society that it's part of.

Equally being in the bottom 3 player budget of the premier league is a bitter pill to swallow. We've been in the top flight since the 80s, I don't see how we're progressing as a club.

Expecting rich benefactor (s) to come in for a minority share is more whimsical than perhaps realistic.  I'm ok with continuing down the society route but believe we need to heavily invest in youth and make that the USP v's brining in journeymen from lower reaches of English divisions and hoping to sell them on for a tint profit.  

Appreciate we may not always hold on to young talent, it's risk worth taking.  

[santheman]

Depends what we want as a club going forward.

A nice wee community club that flirts with relegation every year until the inevitable happens but receives accolades from the media for all our outreach programmes.

A rich businessman takes over invests in the infrastucure and playing squad to make us a solid year on year top six team.

Ideally a combination of both.

 

[bobbybingo]

I don't see what potential we offer foreign investors, so I'd be very cautious about any approach re ownership. Same as St Johnstone must be.

'Brown admitted the sale was tricky due to the vast land value of the stadium footprint, a 22-acre plot valued at up to £20million. A key part of his final deal is likely to be extracting cast-iron assurances about the long-term plan for his hometown club.'

 

[wellfan]

Providing the Well Society retains no less than 51% ownership, I'm pretty much open to any ideas at this stage. 

[joewarkfanclub]

Regardless of who owns the club we still have to try and live within our means. Otherwise the club just ends up owing money to the investor rather than a bank.

Im sure with the correct investment there is maybe more we can do in terms of the academy, facilities etc which make the club a more attractive place to come and play. However, we need to be making better decisions as a whole and not spaffing money against the wall on managers and players that dont move us forward and generate the extra revenue that can move us forward.

Otherwise you end up like Dundee United, playing in the Championship, millions in debt to an American owner who might call it a day at any point.

Outward investment could be a good thing for us. But it needs to be the right investor with the right intentions and hopefully the business acumen to maje us a more sustainable proposition.

[Kmcalpin]

To St Johnstone fans and those of a simliar persuasion, be careful what you wish for. What happens when the new investor tires and wants their money back?  The more clubs who go down this route the harder it will be for clubs like St Johnstone to finish above 6th or even 8th or 9th.  

[yosemite sam]

Unfortunately for  us, the fan ownership (which I am part of) has slowly dragged us down. Why?

Our fan ownership would work if we could at least double the amount of members. The number we have at present makes it very difficult to make progress, because over the years costs go up, but our membership doesn't go up to compensate , so you eventually reach a point where what we put into the club isn't enough.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong. That's why if we could put some kind of package together for interested people to invest in conjunction with the Well Society, this would put us a more stable footing.

[Spiderpig]

52 minutes ago, yosemite sam said:

Unfortunately for  us, the fan ownership (which I am part of) has slowly dragged us down. Why?

Our fan ownership would work if we could at least double the amount of members. The number we have at present makes it very difficult to make progress, because over the years costs go up, but our membership doesn't go up to compensate , so you eventually reach a point where what we put into the club isn't enough.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong. That's why if we could put some kind of package together for interested people to invest in conjunction with the Well Society, this would put us a more stable footing.

Potential investors want a return on their money, ie controlling interest in the club, ownership of the stadium / land etc and for me the WS is a major obstacle to that for investors. Given our very limited fan base it was never going to be a long term workable solution and would any investor want to put money into the club with no certainty of a return / profit and not having control of the club, for me I can't see it happening. 

[David]

12 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

I see it's being reported St Johnstone are in the final stages of a take over by an American businessman. Im just curious if Motherwell were subject to decent investment take over but it required the cessation of fan ownership how many of you would go for it?

As others have mentioned, I think we'll find it incredibly difficult to find anyone, be it a group of investors or an individual, who would be willing to throw their money into a project without having control over said project. 

Add in the fact that the controlling interest isn't being held by a fellow wealthy individual or group with experience in business, but a large swathe of what can only be termed as non-business savvy individuals for the most part. 

What group or individual is going to find that an attractive proposition? Outwith a rich Motherwell fan who simply wants to burn some money helping a club he or his ancestors supported, I don't see it as being feasible.

We can't have our cake and eat it, so to speak. We either sell up properly and entice a wealthy owner who would be the actual owner, or we continue as is. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

To answer a few, I'm not asking if it's feasible, I'm asking if the offer was there for substantial investment but a condition was fan ownership being given up how many of you would say yes.

[David]

5 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

To answer a few, I'm not asking if it's feasible, I'm asking if the offer was there for substantial investment but a condition was fan ownership being given up how many of you would say yes.

It would be a no from me.

[Spiderpig]

6 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

To answer a few, I'm not asking if it's feasible, I'm asking if the offer was there for substantial investment but a condition was fan ownership being given up how many of you would say yes.

I'm not a WS member, but if it was a question to all fans then I would say yes

[FirParkCornerExile]

14 minutes ago, David said:

It would be a no from me.

Do you know if I was a young man id say no too. However I'm at a stage in my life where there's less ahead than there is behind and I'd fed up with the struggle just keeping our heads above water. The possibility of a few seasons before I croak it where where had genuine excitement and even the slightest possibility of I cup I think I'd go for it. Selfish ? Yeah, but after putting money in for 46 years I'm fed up with the piss poor level of expectation. Before anyone starts listing what we've done I'm well aware of it I've been at them all. Other than a last minute winner to get top six in the most turgid football you could ever imagine the trend looks like being one way. It might not be but the odds are it probably is, so yeah I'd go for a stab at being bought over. I know there's risks but there are risks being fan owned too. There are no guarantees in life.

[David]

4 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Do you know if I was a young man id say no too. However I'm at a stage in my life where there's less ahead than there is behind and I'd fed up with the struggle just keeping our heads above water. The possibility of a few seasons before I croak it where where had genuine excitement and even the slightest possibility of I cup I think I'd go for it. Selfish ? Yeah, but after putting money in for 46 years I'm fed up with the piss poor level of expectation.

I'm not that young either, but I'd also like to think we're leaving behind a solid community club for our children and their children. 

Football, for the most part, has become the game of the rich and wealthy. Bought up by millionaires, billionaires, and oil-rich nations. With very few exceptions, that is all that football fans of a certain age know. They buy their overpriced English Premiership jersey of choice, pay to have their favourite multi-millionaire mercenary's name added to the back of it, and watch their team on their large 4K telly in surround sound. 

Motherwell and clubs like us are different. When I go to a game with a young family member, their heroes can be accosted outside Fir Park for a photo, autograph, and a chat.    

Our young fans don't need to be happy with briefly seeing their favourite player walk past, head down and headphones on, behind a wall of security as they head into the stadium. 

Our younger generation can sit in the season ticket seat that our father or grandfather once sat in. For the most part, they can rest assured that they won't be priced out of that, to be replaced with some foreigner who's here on a "football holiday" wearing a half-and-half scarf and paying over the odds to some company that snaps up seats by the tens or hundreds to sell in packages.

I like who we are as a club. I like that we employ financial responsibility and don't rely on money from elsewhere. I also like that we are very much community-based. I know that angle gets a lot of slating on here, but I like that our social media account bears the tagline that we exist to improve people's lives.

If football doesn't exist to provide value and enjoyment and to improve the lives of those who follow it, then what's the point? To fill the coffers of the wealthy owners? To sell jerseys? 

We'd all love to win a cup, but I'd honestly much rather we had a fan-owned club that we could be proud of, and that will be there for future generations in a stadium that holds a lot of family memories than anything else.

If our fanbase can only afford to support a club that ends up playing in the Championship or even lower, then so be it. I'll still be there, hoping to win the next game and pouring over the stats of our next unknown signing before writing them off and then being proved beautifully wrong as they defy the odds and come good.

[AllyMax]

I really can't see what the appeal would be to any business person in buying into Scottish Football.  Unless they're working a deal to end up owning the stadium and land when the club inevitably can't pay back the 'investment'. There's less than a million in prize money between 4th and 12th, so even if some rich benefactor contributes say £1M a year to increase player quality (and up the wages available for players), even if doing it guarantees 3rd place, there's still no profit to take out.

We've had a rich fan owner, installing unqualified people to run the club and we all know how that turned out.

Unless you're Celtic, there are no massive profits from which to recoup investment. For better or for worse, I'd like to see our club continue to run in a way it can survive and carry on surviving whatever that might mean. I certainly don't want to be the next Gretna, or even Dundee, or h**s or Livi.

People on here regularly say they want to see the club 'pushing the boat out, showing ambition and investing in the squad'. I'd love to see the plan of how that is expected to play out.

[grumpy]

1 hour ago, David said:

I'm not that young either, but I'd also like to think we're leaving behind a solid community club for our children and their children. 

Football, for the most part, has become the game of the rich and wealthy. Bought up by millionaires, billionaires, and oil-rich nations. With very few exceptions, that is all that football fans of a certain age know. They buy their overpriced English Premiership jersey of choice, pay to have their favourite multi-millionaire mercenary's name added to the back of it, and watch their team on their large 4K telly in surround sound. 

Motherwell and clubs like us are different. When I go to a game with a young family member, their heroes can be accosted outside Fir Park for a photo, autograph, and a chat.    

Our young fans don't need to be happy with briefly seeing their favourite player walk past, head down and headphones on, behind a wall of security as they head into the stadium. 

Our younger generation can sit in the season ticket seat that our father or grandfather once sat in. For the most part, they can rest assured that they won't be priced out of that, to be replaced with some foreigner who's here on a "football holiday" wearing a half-and-half scarf and paying over the odds to some company that snaps up seats by the tens or hundreds to sell in packages.

I like who we are as a club. I like that we employ financial responsibility and don't rely on money from elsewhere. I also like that we are very much community-based. I know that angle gets a lot of slating on here, but I like that our social media account bears the tagline that we exist to improve people's lives.

If football doesn't exist to provide value and enjoyment and to improve the lives of those who follow it, then what's the point? To fill the coffers of the wealthy owners? To sell jerseys? 

We'd all love to win a cup, but I'd honestly much rather we had a fan-owned club that we could be proud of, and that will be there for future generations in a stadium that holds a lot of family memories than anything else.

If our fanbase can only afford to support a club that ends up playing in the Championship or even lower, then so be it. I'll still be there, hoping to win the next game and pouring over the stats of our next unknown signing before writing them off and then being proved beautifully wrong as they defy the odds and come good.

I whole-heartedly agree with pretty much all of that. I've been going to Fir Park for (scarily) nearly 57 years, I've seen good teams that won nothing, a cup win, multiple semi-final and final heart breaks, relegations and promotions, and loads of seasons in-between. I sit and watch games from the cooper stand with my daughter and brother-in-law and I hope that, sooner rather than later, at least one of my grand children will take up a seat close to me. If (when) we get relegated, will I be happy? No. If and when we do go down, will I be happy if we end up like Dunfermline or Falkirk, or worse still Cowdenbeath or Albion Rovers? No. But I wouldn't swap those eventualities for five years of relative success, funded by a megalomaniac which led to the death of the club I love.

If I was a St. Johnstone fan, I would be very wary of what is to come.

[weeyin]

5 hours ago, yosemite sam said:

Unfortunately for  us, the fan ownership (which I am part of) has slowly dragged us down. Why?

The "why" is because John Boyle ran up massive debts as an owner/investor. While he didn't call in all that he was owed, he did leave us in a bit of a state when he gave up his holding. One of the reasons we ended up as fan owned was because JB couldn't find a buyer for a club with our problems. As he had put us into administration it meant the club couldn't get a bank loan (for 10 years as I recall) which, even for wealthy investors, is often a requirement for running a business.

Whether you like the man or not, we were lucky Les was around to fund us and steer us in the right direction for fan ownership otherwise we could have been floating around the lower leagues by now - or worse.

In fact, if you want to see the dangers of a single investor, Boyle is a great example - a fan, a businessman, and a guy who wanted the best for the club, but still managed to nearly kill us off.

[Mccus28]

Its safe to say we are going backwards with the current fan ownership model with the budget getting less and less (or so SK keeps saying) so its a certainty we need investment in one form or another.

The chances of a wealthy investor coming in for us whilst Scottish football is run in such a farcical manner with what in reality is very little prize money must be slim.

Id love a Wrexham story but can you imagine where Wrexham will be if the 2 owners get bored and sell up, that would be an utter car crash given their budget now, so for me we need sustainability and a model where we can get a slightly bigger budget or we'll be diving into the Championship in the not to distant future and who knows where that would take us.

[Jay]

On 2/19/2024 at 11:07 PM, FirParkCornerExile said:

In reality we aren't going to get major investment without ownership. Playing devil's advocate here.  So if we stuck to the fan based model and couldn't retain our SPFL status cos we couldn't compete with clubs who have ownership investment would you change that view ?

This is a really good question & one that's sparked my return from a long hiatus on here (although anyone who also peruses P&B will notice I started posting there a couple of weeks ago after years away too).

As a member of the Well Society Board who has been elected & re-elected by Society members, I personally think there's an element of responsibility there in terms of safeguarding fan-ownership. It seems logical to assume that, if Society members have voted for you, they want you to try & grow the Society, champion the benefits of fan-ownership, and presumably subscribe to one of the key reasons used for fan-ownership in the first place - preventing the club from falling into the wrong hands.

In terms of growing the Society, I feel like there is now a majority of like-minded individuals on the Board following the recent elections (that, in all honesty, previously just didn't exist to the same extent) who recognise the need for drastic improvements across the Society, ensuring greater transparency, far better communications, and a raft of other aspects. That work is very much underway and I think it's certain that the Society will see growth in membership & income in the coming months & beyond as a direct result - the ceiling of that is, of course, very much up for debate. But, genuinely, it's the most positive I've felt about fan-ownership this side of the pandemic. 

So, for me, the answers to the original question like this are really important - because if it is, in fact, the case that a majority of Well Society members would rather end fan-ownership, then that's something we would need to be guided by and, essentially, carry out - and it's something we will likely have to actually ask members sooner rather than later, to ensure that we're doing what they want us to do. For the avoidance of doubt, no investment happens in the football club without, firstly, the Well Society Board being involved in the discussions with interested parties and, secondly, a ballot of all Society members - with a majority needing to agree to the offer.

In terms of the actual question itself, I think it's worth highlighting the, potentially never-ending, caveats that mean it's not anywhere near as simple a question as "would you swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". The level of investment itself, who is providing that investment, their intentions for the club, and a whole host of other aspects are incredibly important there too. It's also worth remembering that fan-ownership isn't just some trinket that's been put in a cupboard in the Phil O'Donnell Stand somewhere, it's the result of years and years of time, effort, and money from an endless list of individuals, so I dare say there's a need to actually consider what scrapping all that work is worth to people.

Put it this way - I don't think in today's world it's ever going to be as simple as folk just wanting to "swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". What else would they sacrifice for that and where are the red lines? Would folk take a few extra quid to ensure that we're potentially finishing 6th or 7th each year, in exchange for a club that loses its entire community-based ethos? Would folk take five years of European adventures, in exchange for investment that is only part of a five year plan, with investors set to pack up & leave soon after leaving the club in the lurch? Would folk take dodgy money from unknown sources to make us the 3rd force in Scottish football until the investors got bored, in exchange for the eradication of our own youth academy? Would folk take all of those sacrifices - the loss of the club's identify, no long-term plan, no youth academy - for a club that could still end up in the Championship regardless of investment like Dundee Utd? All hypothetical scenarios but all very real possibilities.

As I mentioned before, protecting the club from falling into the "wrong hands" has long been a reason given for fan-ownership, and I think this is possibly a very real example of a scenario where people need to be very careful what they wish for.

[dennyc]

From day one I bought into the fan owned set up and signed up right away. The positivity around the Club was fantastic and it was brilliant soaking up all the fine words that our wee Community Club attracted. Even as the fan model was adapted over time,  that enthusiasm continued for a while. The community aspect still gives me a buzz. So I understand why folk want to persist with the current structure.

However, the reality is that for financial reasons we have been in decline for a good few years with results falling away and the quality on the pitch lessening season upon season. No amount of "it was planned for" or "exceptional expenditure"will convince me that the losses incurred in recent times are not worrying signs.  Simply put, a fan base of 4000 cannot alone fund a Club at the level we all aspire to. It has already been highlighted how the set up in Scotland does nothing to assist our income flow. Any temporary slow down in that decline has been due to a few decent cup runs coupled with player sales, particularly of players developed through our youth development programme. My worry is that as player quality continues to reduce and youth development continues to stall, the likelihood of such income reduces considerably and that downward spiral will persist.

I'm not saying mistakes hastening our current situation have not been made. We all have our views regards current and former Board members, Managers, player recruitment etc etc. But stepping back and looking at the bigger picture I am not convinced that anybody could have brought about a different position to where we are at as of now. Money talks.

So looking forward? As I see it we can stick with the current "feel good" model until such time as we find a league position that matches our current funding. And I don't think that will be at Premiership level looking to the rate of our decline and the investment I see other Cubs attracting. I do appreciate and accept that some fans would choose that option. Or we can move on from the fan owned majority holding if need be in an attempt to attract sufficient outside investment to maintain our Premiership status. Either option carries it's own risk and there will be differing views expressed by the fans. Existing fans will likely follow our Club no matter what level we are at, but what of future generations? It is tough enough attracting new blood  but I wonder how much tougher that would be if we were playing the likes of Annan every week.

For me, we gave the fan owned thing a good try. But it is not working and sadly it is time to look at other options.

Or Taylor Swift and her boyfriend might come to our rescue just for the hell of it.

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

This is a really good question & one that's sparked my return from a long hiatus on here (although anyone who also peruses P&B will notice I started posting there a couple of weeks ago after years away too).

As a member of the Well Society Board who has been elected & re-elected by Society members, I personally think there's an element of responsibility there in terms of safeguarding fan-ownership. It seems logical to assume that, if Society members have voted for you, they want you to try & grow the Society, champion the benefits of fan-ownership, and presumably subscribe to one of the key reasons used for fan-ownership in the first place - preventing the club from falling into the wrong hands.

In terms of growing the Society, I feel like there is now a majority of like-minded individuals on the Board following the recent elections (that, in all honesty, previously just didn't exist to the same extent) who recognise the need for drastic improvements across the Society, ensuring greater transparency, far better communications, and a raft of other aspects. That work is very much underway and I think it's certain that the Society will see growth in membership & income in the coming months & beyond as a direct result - the ceiling of that is, of course, very much up for debate. But, genuinely, it's the most positive I've felt about fan-ownership this side of the pandemic. 

So, for me, the answers to the original question like this are really important - because if it is, in fact, the case that a majority of Well Society members would rather end fan-ownership, then that's something we would need to be guided by and, essentially, carry out - and it's something we will likely have to actually ask members sooner rather than later, to ensure that we're doing what they want us to do. For the avoidance of doubt, no investment happens in the football club without, firstly, the Well Society Board being involved in the discussions with interested parties and, secondly, a ballot of all Society members - with a majority needing to agree to the offer.

In terms of the actual question itself, I think it's worth highlighting the, potentially never-ending, caveats that mean it's not anywhere near as simple a question as "would you swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". The level of investment itself, who is providing that investment, their intentions for the club, and a whole host of other aspects are incredibly important there too. It's also worth remembering that fan-ownership isn't just some trinket that's been put in a cupboard in the Phil O'Donnell Stand somewhere, it's the result of years and years of time, effort, and money from an endless list of individuals, so I dare say there's a need to actually consider what scrapping all that work is worth to people.

Put it this way - I don't think in today's world it's ever going to be as simple as folk just wanting to "swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". What else would they sacrifice for that and where are the red lines? Would folk take a few extra quid to ensure that we're potentially finishing 6th or 7th each year, in exchange for a club that loses its entire community-based ethos? Would folk take five years of European adventures, in exchange for investment that is only part of a five year plan, with investors set to pack up & leave soon after leaving the club in the lurch? Would folk take dodgy money from unknown sources to make us the 3rd force in Scottish football until the investors got bored, in exchange for the eradication of our own youth academy? Would folk take all of those sacrifices - the loss of the club's identify, no long-term plan, no youth academy - for a club that could still end up in the Championship regardless of investment like Dundee Utd? All hypothetical scenarios but all very real possibilities.

As I mentioned before, protecting the club from falling into the "wrong hands" has long been a reason given for fan-ownership, and I think this is possibly a very real example of a scenario where people need to be very careful what they wish for.

Good post , and the merits of Fan ownership are great in principle, however when applied to a club of Motherwells size there is a fundamental problem ie our fan base , even if every single fan joined the WS would still be too small to make it a sustainable model. 

So the club is going to need additional outside investment, which in turn raises the question of would a potential investor be interested in commiting money without gaining control of the club? For me I struggle to see how the club can attract investment with the WS in place, I hope that not the case but at the moment I don't think we are an attractive proposition.