New Investment Options

[FirParkCornerExile]

5 hours ago, Well Well said:

Can we rely on the sell a player model forever without investment?. Personally I don't think so. If anything we have been extremely lucky to have a few players coming through the academy that we can sell off, unfortunately we are seeing recently a few signing for bigger clubs before we can cash in on them.

I don't think the Well society can sustain the club at its current level and probably not if we were in a league lower with the lack of premier league gates and revenue.

I honestly don't know what the answer is however I don't think we can continue the way we are we can't go into every season with our fingers x that we don't get relegated and a player plays well enough to sell on. 

Finances are yo-yoing no matter how you try to spin them.

Thats it completely the Well society can sustain the club, of that I have no doubt,  but the level at which they sustain it must drop in the next 5/10 years if they cannot grow our income streams in a sustainable manner. Sure we could be lucky and sell a few players in that time and maybe a couple of good cup runs but they are by no means guaranteed. So our future is a bit of a lottery under the current model.

[Stuwell2]

2 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Thats it completely the Well society can sustain the club, of that I have no doubt,  but the level at which they sustain it must drop in the next 5/10 years if they cannot grow our income streams in a sustainable manner. Sure we could be lucky and sell a few players in that time and maybe a couple of good cup runs but they are by no means guaranteed. So our future is a bit of a lottery under the current model.

I’d say every club that is our contemporary has the same issues including the arse cheeks to a lesser degree.

Potentially what makes us different from most is that we don’t have an owner who could just pull the plug and watch us go down the drain as they draw out as much cash from the club as possible. 
Not a warning about outside investment but something we all need to keep in mind. 

[steelboy]

10 minutes ago, dennyc said:

By the same token we would be in a better position if we had not incurred losses of over £3m in the past two accounting years. Those losses are clearly not of concern to some. How long can we sustain losses of that nature? And, Yes, we would still have had to spend a fortune on the East Stand and Pitch even if that previous income had not been available. Possibly funded by the Well Society leaving us even more exposed. Those upgrades were almost mandatory for Safety Certificate reasons and to avoid further SPFL sanctions because of the pitch. And Fir Park will continue to eat up funds as repairs are ongoing.

 

Safety certificates meant we had to level the pitch? Further SPFL sanctions when we haven't been sanctioned for the pitch since 2010? Are you sure about that?

I don't understand where you are coming from at all with concerning the losses. We make a profit one season. The money is in our bank account and we spend it. It shows up as loss the next season. It's totally normal. You seem to be suggesting that we should never spend more than we earn in any 12 month accounting period regardless of the cash in the bank which is a fairly mental way to budget for anything.

The 12 month period is totally arbitrary, it's not the be all and end.

 

[dennyc]

7 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Safety certificates meant we had to level the pitch?

 

I think you are clever enough to know that the Safety Certificate comment related to the ground facilities.

And you can only spend profits if you earn them. Losses of over a million in successive seasons will soon empty the coffers.

[wellgirl]

36 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Thats it completely the Well society can sustain the club, of that I have no doubt,  but the level at which they sustain it must drop in the next 5/10 years if they cannot grow our income streams in a sustainable manner. Sure we could be lucky and sell a few players in that time and maybe a couple of good cup runs but they are by no means guaranteed. So our future is a bit of a lottery under the current model.

Agree 

[wellgirl]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

Because McMahon and Weir don't like the look of the new Society board.

Who is it they don't like? Phil, Amber? All of them? 

[steelboy]

26 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I think you are clever enough to know that the Safety Certificate comment related to the ground facilities.

And you can only spend profits if you earn them. Losses of over a million in successive seasons will soon empty the coffers.

Levelling the pitch and adapting the East Stand to the new height were the expensive outlays.

We earned it. Then we spent it. The alternative would be sitting in a relegation battle with a pile of money in the bank and not touching it for no reason at all other than some people don't like seeing an annual loss.

[Spiderpig]

43 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Safety certificates meant we had to level the pitch? Further SPFL sanctions when we haven't been sanctioned for the pitch since 2010? Are you sure about that?

I don't understand where you are coming from at all with concerning the losses. We make a profit one season. The money is in our bank account and we spend it. It shows up as loss the next season. It's totally normal. You seem to be suggesting that we should never spend more than we earn in any 12 month accounting period regardless of the cash in the bank which is a fairly mental way to budget for anything.

The 12 month period is totally arbitrary, it's not the be all and end.

 

Random shite as usual 

[wunderwell]

21 hours ago, David said:

It's not precarious if the club is run correctly. 

We budget for finishing 10th and a few cup games, and anything else above & beyond that goes into the "rainy day" fund. Be it player sales, extended cup runs, top six finishes, whatever.

For example, we're sitting 8th at the moment, and let's say that finishing in 8th means getting £1.375 million instead of the £1.250 million the team finishing 10th gets.

That's an extra hundred grand or so that we didn't account for, so it's a little bonus. 

This budget does not match the recent P and L's
I suspect now that we are setting a proper budget and Kettlewell has less for the playing squad.

[wunderwell]

9 hours ago, dennyc said:

For me this is the vital ingredient.

I think everybody acknowledges that just like everybody else we are a selling Club. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But unless the club is at the same time generating profits and/or has a constant stream of quality youth coming through, then the product on the pitch inevitably decreases. A trend we have seen for a good few seasons as income has been utilised for a wide range of infrastructure improvements rather than maintaining player quality. Not having a dig at the Directors here as most Clubs are experiencing similar decline. To a degree that has hidden our own issues.

What the Board statement actually said before all this debate started was that to CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT THE CURRENT LEVEL some form of outside investment is required. If we are prepared to risk a drop in the level we play at, then we can continue as is.

So why can't we strive to have a balance that incorporates outside investment on acceptable terms plus income from player sales plus a growing Well Society? Especially if that additional investment is used in part to fund a stronger and more productive youth programme. Then any on field performance above the level budgeted for results in growth and does not mean we just stand still at best.

Also the big issue with bringing in value through player sales is that players will often deliberately let contracts run out. And there is nothing the Club can do about it. Take Lennon Miller. Thankfully he has extended and we all expect him to go for Turnbull like monies. But what if next January Motherwell are offered half of what they think he is worth. Do they turn the offer down or reluctantly accept it because we need the money? If they opt not do sell, could that upset the player in which case he might decide to run down his contract in the hope of a big sign on fee from a top club in due course? That situation is happening throughout the football world. My point is that overly relying on player sales is risky. And if those potential sales are the only realistic way of generating income then that risk is greatly increased.

And sorry, but saying we have broken even over the past seven, ten or twenty years is meaningless. Turnbull and two cup finals in a season are history. What matters is how finances are working out in the present.

This is the bang on the money in every detail.

[David]

13 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

There is a huge difference between increasing revenue streams and taking on outside investment.

This is it in a nutshell. There's a huge difference between increasing revenue streams and basically living outwith our means and hoping some wealthy individual will cover the shortfall.

 

[David]

12 hours ago, dennyc said:

So why can't we strive to have a balance that incorporates outside investment on acceptable terms plus income from player sales plus a growing Well Society? Especially if that additional investment is used in part to fund a stronger and more productive youth programme. Then any on field performance above the level budgeted for results in growth and does not mean we just stand still at best.

So, all we're looking for is an investor who gives us money but doesn't want a controlling stake in how and where his money is spent, the ability to sell our young players for a profit that the club keeps, and more people joining the Well Society?

Sounds amazing, but incredibly unrealistic to me. 

Again, we come back to this word "investment" when in reality what we want is someone to give us money to compete with other clubs who are spending outwith their means, and for that individual to find some vague, unknown way that they can see an ROI that doesn't affect the club in any way. 

[weeyin]

I read an article about Rotherham's financial struggles and the manager (I think) saying for anyone to put money in it has to be a "passion project" rather than an investment. 

That's the challenge for most clubs, and you have to be lucky to find someone who would treat it like that - like a fan who wins the lottery. 

So it's unlikely that any 'normal' investor won't want some sort of return and/or control.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

I think the documentary side of things has potential as a revenue stream and possibly the streaming of our games more globally, as thats what Barmack knows. But how that fits with tv deals negotiated by the League, SFA, UEFA etc remains to be seen.

The player trading also has possibilities, but we would need to be a whole lit better at it than we are now for both Barmack AND Motherwell to make more money out of it.

An academy in the States with access to a larger pool of talent with the outlook of moving them onto the Premiership could work, but again Id be concerned about how this would impact local talent getting into the team, as thats pretty much been my favourite thing over the last 10 years.

Watching the likes of Cadden, Campbell, Turnbell, Hastie, Johnstone and Miller all coming through has been a joy.

[Casagolda]

On 4/20/2024 at 4:15 PM, dennyc said:

By the same token we would be in a better position if we had not incurred losses of over £3m in the past two accounting years. Those losses are clearly not of concern to some. How long can we sustain losses of that nature? And, Yes, we would still have had to spend a fortune on the East Stand and Pitch even if that previous income had not been available. Possibly funded by the Well Society leaving us even more exposed. Those upgrades were almost mandatory for Safety Certificate reasons and to avoid further SPFL sanctions because of the pitch. And Fir Park will continue to eat up funds as repairs are ongoing.

And, if investment  had been secured earlier, we could perhaps have also had funds to improve the playing squad rather than bringing in the low cost players you have openly stated are not good enough.

There is scope for outside Investment, the Society and player sales. In fact proper application of any Investment could actually result in more profitable youth development, increased player sales and improved performance on the pitch.

The £3m "loss" is not an ongoing situation.

Money was given during Covid as an interest free loan and the club chose to spend some of that money on changes to the park and hunter stand. That is a one time expense.  That was not related to any safety certificate. The main stand has had some issues in the past that needed addressing but i believe that is now sorted and not a large on going cost.

So your point about sustainability is completely wide of the mark.

[FirParkCornerExile]

22 hours ago, Casagolda said:

The £3m "loss" is not an ongoing situation.

Money was given during Covid as an interest free loan and the club chose to spend some of that money on changes to the park and hunter stand. That is a one time expense.  That was not related to any safety certificate. The main stand has had some issues in the past that needed addressing but i believe that is now sorted and not a large on going cost.

So your point about sustainability is completely wide of the mark.

I dont know what it is many Motherwell fans cant get their head around about the ground improvements. The £3 million we got from Government was a 20 year interest free loan. It could not be spent on players wages . The stipulation was it must be spent on the fabric of the club. The club would have been mad not to take the loan. At worst the expenditure to finance that loan in any year only ever amounts to  £150,000 a year. A very small proportion of any losses we incur in any season. The £3million pound will never ever appear as a loss on the clubs accounts because its not a loss its a loan. There is so much pish written about us wasting money on ground improvements when the reality is we couldn't have got the loan for anything else and it was an absolute bargain on those terms.

[steelboy]

Not directly related to us but the EPL club owners have now announced plans for a salary cap. It's obviously the start of a move to move huge NFL style profits out of the UK and into the owners foreign bank accounts. 

I don't remember any of them saying they were going to do this when they bought the clubs....

[Yabba's Turd]

44 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Not directly related to us but the EPL club owners have now announced plans for a salary cap. It's obviously the start of a move to move huge NFL style profits out of the UK and into the owners foreign bank accounts. 

I don't remember any of them saying they were going to do this when they bought the clubs....

You realise the difference though right? NFL is an entertainment sport, EPL is sports entertainment. Can't see it working unless it's uefa wide

[wellfan]

17 minutes ago, Yabba's Turd said:

You realise the difference though right? NFL is an entertainment sport, EPL is sports entertainment. Can't see it working unless it's uefa wide

And nobody is going to want to pay to watch the SPL with our current standard of officiating. It couldn't be further from sport or entertainment as it stands. 

[steelboy]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:18 PM, FirParkCornerExile said:

It could not be spent on players wages . The stipulation was it must be spent on the fabric of the club.

This is a another Steelmen Online myth. It exists nowhere else than here. 

[steelboy]

26 minutes ago, Yabba's Turd said:

You realise the difference though right? NFL is an entertainment sport, EPL is sports entertainment. Can't see it working unless it's uefa wide

The only reason to have a salary cap is to guarantee profits for the owners. It's why all the foreign money poured in. These owners saw a cash cow just waiting to be milked and the English will never get their game back again.  

They can't get rid of relegation but they are also demanding to be allowed to spend 5 times more than other Championship clubs the season after being relegated.

Hopefully the PFA refuse to have anything to do with it.

[weeyin]

The salary cap idea sounds more like a reaction the new Football Regulator that has been introduced. Most EPL clubs are spewing money and running at a loss thanks to massive wage bills. Not to mention all the issues many are facing with breaches of the Financial Fair Play rules.

I doubt it's workable, but something needs to be done.

Just look at the data posted here. For example, only 3 clubs making a pre-tax profit

 

and the eye watering debt

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

Not directly related to us but the EPL club owners have now announced plans for a salary cap. It's obviously the start of a move to move huge NFL style profits out of the UK and into the owners foreign bank accounts. 

I don't remember any of them saying they were going to do this when they bought the clubs....

Whilst not wishing any club to go under, anything which takes money out of the top tiers of English football can only be a good thing. It might just help to even things up.

[steelboy]

25 minutes ago, weeyin said:

The salary cap idea sounds more like a reaction the new Football Regulator that has been introduced. Most EPL clubs are spewing money and running at a loss thanks to massive wage bills. Not to mention all the issues many are facing with breaches of the Financial Fair Play rules.

I doubt it's workable, but something needs to be done.

Just look at the data posted here. For example, only 3 clubs making a pre-tax profit

 

and the eye watering debt

No one is forcing them to spend so much. It's a choice from those owners. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

38 minutes ago, weeyin said:

The salary cap idea sounds more like a reaction the new Football Regulator that has been introduced. Most EPL clubs are spewing money and running at a loss thanks to massive wage bills. Not to mention all the issues many are facing with breaches of the Financial Fair Play rules.

I doubt it's workable, but something needs to be done.

Just look at the data posted here. For example, only 3 clubs making a pre-tax profit

 

and the eye watering debt

thank fuck I dont pay Sky a penny.