New Investment Options

[Kmcalpin]

18 minutes ago, dennyc said:

 I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details.

The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully every Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

I take several things from the results. A quick calculation shows that the adult membership (all those entitled to vote) is approximately 2,760;the rest being juniors.  As I understand it, all those adults who are paying monthly or have put in lump sums were entitled to vote. To me the low response rate is very concerning and is the main conclusion I draw from the results. Why is that? Is every member contactable by email? Some may not be. I also suspect that there are errors in the membership database - not all down to the Society.  I can't quantify them. Some would not understand the wording of the question, as it was a bit woolly, as others have said.  Apathy - yes. 

I voted yes, but have no knowledge whatsoever of the 2 actual offers. I may well change my mind once I find out the details (in fact I probably will).  

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, Casagolda said:

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about?

Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

I find it hard to believe there were society members who didn't know there was a vote. If they didn't they must live in a bubble away from all social media about Motherwell and all family and friends who go to the games. 

[Kmcalpin]

5 minutes ago, Casagolda said:

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about?

Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

Some truth in that. The consultation did seem rushed.

[Throughthelaces]

You were never going to get 100% of the fan base or society voting on this. We’re a niche of a niche most motherwell supporters aren’t on fan forums and wondering about the day to day operations at the club or investment. Same with most clubs most fans are a go to the home games or the home games they can maybe a cup final if the club gets there and then you have the more active support. More active support tends to be the ones who spend time on fan forums and wonder about the running of the club and sustainability. 
 

an example is in my own house I’m very active in my support a Saturday isn’t a Saturday if I’m not at the match, I listen to the pressers and read the opinions on here and share the odd one here and there. I pay my money to the society, I even went as far as to think about the vote for a day or two before submitting my decision.

 

my partner on the other hand comes to the games and enjoys the game and that’s her done with it until the next week and If I didn’t go to the away games she wouldn’t independently go to those. I imagine most of the support is the same at most clubs.  
 

so I’m not surprised at the turn out being just below a thousand. That’s almost 1/4 of our average home attendance which is about level with what I’d expect. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said:

I take several things from the results. A quick calculation shows that the adult membership (all those entitled to vote) is approximately 2,760;the rest being juniors.  As I understand it, all those adults who are paying monthly or have put in lump sums were entitled to vote. To me the low response rate is very concerning and is the main conclusion I draw from the results. Why is that? Is every member contactable by email? Some may not be. I also suspect that there are errors in the membership database - not all down to the Society.  I can't quantify them. Some would not understand the wording of the question, as it was a bit woolly, as others have said.  Apathy - yes. 

I voted yes, but have no knowledge whatsoever of the 2 actual offers. I may well change my mind once I find out the details (in fact I probably will).  

I wasn't contacted and if id had locked myself in a cupboard I wouldn't have known there was a vote. However as a supporter I heard about it from everyone and their granny who are Motherwell supporters and it was also on social media and in the print media. I therefore assumed correctly the WS didn't have my correct details so contacted them by email as we were asked to do. I got a reply within an hour giving me the link to vote. I find it incredible that would have bee so difficult for the majority of society members.

[wellfan]

Just now, FirParkCornerExile said:

I find it hard to believe there were society members who didn't know there was a vote. If they didn't they must live in a bubble away from all social media about Motherwell and all family and friends who go to the games. 

As I said in my earlier post, there are 1600 members who don't financially contribute anymore. It seems reasonable to suggest that some of those members may not be as engaged with the WS, or bothered, as those on the forums and social media are. That's why I've referred to that category of members as ‘silent’. 

[wellgirl]

8 minutes ago, Casagolda said:

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about?

Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

I would expect turnout was low for a few reasons tbh. I got the email. I voted. I also spoke to one of the well society board privately - not over this issue, something else. I completely get the point you are making - and personally I think that efforts are being made to engage with fans now face to face - but this could have happened a lot sooner. And yes. I agree that at home games is the way to do it as well - because folk are already going to watch the match as opposed to going to a meeting on a midweek night. 

The bottom line is for me at least - this was about the future of my clubs investment, so I voted. I expect more people will vote when there's more information about the investment options (that's just my opinion though). 

[FirParkCornerExile]

3 minutes ago, wellfan said:

As I said in my earlier post, there are 1600 members who don't financially contribute anymore. It seems reasonable to suggest that some of those members may not be as engaged with the WS, or bothered, as those on the forums and social media are. That's why I've referred to that category of members as ‘silent’. 

I can't agree your assumption. If people are members they must be more engaged than people who are not just by the sheer action of joining. If they didn't care that wouldn't be members. Before anyone starts I'm not suggesting non members do not care but this discussion is about people  people who are members and couldn't be bothered to vote I really find it beyond credible WS members didn't know there was a vote happening.

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Aye but he gave control to a Muppet 

That's pretty standard in the club ownership business. The other model is for the owner themselves to run it into the ground.

[weeyin]

7 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

I can't agree your assumption. If people are members they must be more engaged than people who are not just by the sheer action of joining. If they didn't care that wouldn't be members. Before anyone starts I'm not suggesting non members do not care but this discussion is about people  people who are members and couldn't be bothered to vote I really find it beyond credible WS members didn't know there was a vote happening.

Maybe they didn't care one way or the other.  I don't remember seeing an "Either" option.

[FirParkCornerExile]

12 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Maybe they didn't care one way or the other.  I don't remember seeing an "Either" option.

That's perfectly possible, but I still think the turnout reflects badly on a group within the clubs support no matter how we dress it up care about the club. To not care either way shows a level of indifference that is really at the crux of our problems as a fan owned club and perhaps explains why no matter how successful we are on the pitch our home support never goes north of 4500. 

[wellfan]

40 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

I can't agree your assumption. If people are members they must be more engaged than people who are not just by the sheer action of joining. If they didn't care that wouldn't be members. Before anyone starts I'm not suggesting non members do not care but this discussion is about people  people who are members and couldn't be bothered to vote I really find it beyond credible WS members didn't know there was a vote happening.

Consider this. I joined the RSPB a few years back when I was particularly enthused by ornithology. I’m not that bothered about it at the moment due to life being busy, which means I generally glass over the member emails and campaigns, but I am still a member and still pay my monthly direct debit. I occasionally go to their nature reserves at the weekend, but, if they put out a member poll asking to vote on the ownership of a nature reserve, I'd probably ignore or miss it. 

Returning to the WS, many of the 1600 non-paying monthly members likely became members by paying a lump sum at the beginning of the WS many years ago. Many of those members may now be, for example, deceased, emigrated, or disinterested. The latter is the most likely. 

A key aim of the WS Board should be figuring out a strategy to better enagage those in the 1600 category. It should focus on getting those (still alive) to activate a monthly direct debit. Something like that could increase our monthly paying adult member base to c.3000. Put simply, stating the membership is at 3800 doesn't tell the full story when 1600 are non-paying and 700 are kids. 

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid. 

I get that, but my point isn't about the vote that's just happened. That is done and dusted and valid and it should be honoured.

My point is about my concerns with any future vote regarding the future of the club and any sale to an outside investor; if less than 50% of the Well Society vote in any poll regarding the sale of shares, or purchase of or whatever, does that in any way constitute a majority of the membership?

Would the WS Board then need to put into action the results of a vote which regards anything from the sale of the club, sale of some of the WS stake, or agreeing to outside investment and does that, in corporate law/takeover requirements, constitute a valid vote to support any legal requirements to be able to vote as a block of 72% of the club.

Sorry that's a bit of a word salad but I'm typing quickly before having to jump into a meeting.

[wellfan]

5 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

if less than 50% of the Well Society vote in any poll regarding the sale of shares, or purchase of or whatever, does that in any way constitute a majority of the membership?

Linking to what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, I think it would be important to understand what percentage of the 3800 members are eligible/able to vote before the true turnout figure is understood/calculated following any future binding vote. 

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, wellfan said:

Linking to what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, I think it would be important to understand what percentage of the 3800 members are eligible/able to vote before the true turnout figure is understood/calculated following any future binding vote. 

Aye, fair point. If 1,000 members weren't able to vote because they're junior members, that does change things somewhat.

[wellfan]

Just now, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, fair point. If 1,000 members weren't able to vote because they're junior members, that does change things somewhat.

Yep. That's why a breakdown in membership figures and voting data would be helpful. 

Somebody who better understands these things might be able to look at the result alongside the membership demographic and make better sense of it all. I certainly can't. 

[wellgirl]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, fair point. If 1,000 members weren't able to vote because they're junior members, that does change things somewhat.

Surely though the percentage given in the email was of the people eligible to vote. The junior members will have been taken out of the equation before that percentage was calculated. 

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, santheman said:

I'm maybe wrong here and someone please correct me if I am but do you have to have made a minimum payment of £300 to the WS before you get a vote.

The reason I ask is that a mate of mine who pays £5 a month and has paid that for 2 years so has only paid in £120 gets all the weekly emails but didn't get a vote.

If that's the case it might mean a number of members might be in the same position and could be another factor in the relatively low voting figures.

Just re read through things and confused by something I missed from this post.

Weekly updates are being received but no vote option? So some sort of qualifying requirement that we are not aware of as santheman asks? Clearly contact details in this case are up to date so why no vote? Or as simple as different data bases used maybe?

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

I appreciate the need for was members views to be established as a matter of urgency, given the external interest. But this vote only serves to show how much work is required within the Society to ensure the next vote is more inclusive.

Also, regarding communication between Club and Society, was the Society given any heads up prior to the release of the Investment video? So they could prepare for the need for a vote if interested parties stepped forward. Or where they in the dark like the rest of us?

 

 

[sinjy]

I did not vote as I felt that the person and the offer itself would have to be assessed before deciding. A "Motherwell person" with a long history of supporting the club would be Ok with getting full control but some unknown with a shady past who would promise the earth then quit after a few years it would be a no from me.

[Kmcalpin]

12 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

I'm sure there isn't. Once you join, either by paying a £300 lump sum, or make your first Monthly payment of £3 then you're a member and entitled to vote.

My career was in town planning and we would hold a public consultation, which might attract say 3,600 responses. That equated to about 1% of those eligible to respond. Not great. A bulldozer then appears next to a village to start a new housing development and all hell breaks loose. Our reply would be you had the chance to comment but didn't its too late.

I think there's an element of that here, although as we've discussed, there are likely to be many other factors at play. 

[santheman]

14 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Just re read through things and confused by something I missed from this post.

Weekly updates are being received but no vote option? So some sort of qualifying requirement that we are not aware of as santheman asks? Clearly contact details in this case are up to date so why no vote? Or as simple as different data bases used maybe?

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

I appreciate the need for members views to be established as a matter of urgency, given the external interest. But this vote only serves to show how much work is required within the Society to ensure the next vote is more inclusive.

Also, regarding communication between Club and Society, was the Society given any heads up prior to the release of the Investment video? So they could prepare for the need for a vote if interested parties stepped forward. Or where they in the dark like the rest of us?

 

 

I don't know if there is a minimum amount of contributions to allow you a vote. I only guessed that might have been why my mate didn't get the email when he gets every other one.

As you say maybe working off different data bases or something akin to that.

He's going to contact the WS for an explanation.

[steelboy]

21 minutes ago, dennyc said:

 

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

 

 

 

It would be crazy if they just let people buy a vote for a fiver.

£300 was the price of membership when it started so it probably still is. I'm going to email and ask for a copy of the constitution.

[wellgirl]

5 minutes ago, santheman said:

I don't know if there is a minimum amount of contributions to allow you a vote. I only guessed that might have been why my mate didn't get the email when he gets every other one.

As you say maybe working off different data bases or something akin to that.

He's going to contact the WS for an explanation.

Well as long as it's sorted for the next vote that's the main thing.. not trying to say what happened was ok but seems to be more than one person who didn't get all the emails. 

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

Surely though the percentage given in the email was of the people eligible to vote. The junior members will have been taken out of the equation before that percentage was calculated. 

I think the point is that we don't know and it'd be good to get clarity on that. Even if it is something that can be assumed as being the case, if it's not confirmed, or states "of those eligible to vote" in the e-mail, it's not clear.

I haven't got the e-mail as I'm not in the WS, so if anyone can confirm the wording that'd be ideal.

[wellgirl]

5 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I think the point is that we don't know and it'd be good to get clarity on that. Even if it is something that can be assumed as being the case, if it's not confirmed, or states "of those eligible to vote" in the e-mail, it's not clear.

I haven't got the e-mail as I'm not in the WS, so if anyone can confirm the wording that'd be ideal.