Well Society Board Election's 2024

[daver]

This is a nice summary of that deal

Yeah, I saw that last week and what really stood out for me is that the Well Society offers much more in terms fan ownership than they are actually offering (although claiming they provide).

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

[Mccus28]

Its really disappointing to see such a poor turnout on such a massive topic and im suprised more hasn't been discussed on here.

The Well Society really need to try and engage with the current members as they are clearly disillusioned.

625 out of 2830 is wildly low and it would be interesting to see if the society will look into the reasons because I fear for progression if members continue down this path.

Congrats to those elected.

[Spiderpig]

10 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I get that but why shouldn't we encourage fans from other countries to get involved with us. Doesn't need to be a global brand. There are a few people on here who live in the US. I think we should be encouraging fans from all over the world 

The turnout for the WS election was less than 25% of those eligible to vote, it's the remaining 75% of the local WS members that the WS should be encouraging to get them to re-engage with the club to make fan ownership operate as it should.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

The turnout for the WS election was less than 25% of those eligible to vote, it's the remaining 75% of the local WS members that the WS should be encouraging to get them to re-engage with the club to make fan ownership operate as it should.

 

I think its possible to do both.

Part of the Our Club, Our Plan document is certainly to engage our current members and non members to become more involved.

But pretty sure exploring "other markets" will be part of the outside investment strand of the plan.

[Well Well]

31 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

Its really disappointing to see such a poor turnout on such a massive topic and im suprised more hasn't been discussed on here.

The Well Society really need to try and engage with the current members as they are clearly disillusioned.

625 out of 2830 is wildly low and it would be interesting to see if the society will look into the reasons because I fear for progression if members continue down this path.

Congrats to those elected.

To tell you the truth I think a lot of the low turnout is down to all the Barmack nonsense and people just need a rest from politics at their club just now, that and holidays, back to school etc. Lots of stuff diverting people's attention. I certainly don't read anything sinister in it. 

[Mccus28]

9 minutes ago, Well Well said:

To tell you the truth I think a lot of the low turnout is down to all the Barmack nonsense and people just need a rest from politics at their club just now, that and holidays, back to school etc. Lots of stuff diverting people's attention. I certainly don't read anything sinister in it. 

There are always reasons but if the VAST majority of members couldn't be bothered to vote on something this big, then for me thats quite telling

[joewarkfanclub]

2 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

There are always reasons but if the VAST majority of members couldn't be bothered to vote on something this big, then for me thats quite telling

Maybe they didnt view it as big given the number and quality of the candidates though?

They voted in bigger numbers when it did matter, even though it maybe didnt in the end given Barmack pulled the plug, so I wouldnt get that animated about it.

If people had been elected that were not in line with what the members view is and the Society Board were once again split, that would be a bigger problem.

[joewarkfanclub]

Re the politics in football thing.

If someone is posting stuff on an official club / society feed thats one thing.

Using your own personal accounts to post stuff is fair game imho. Particularly if you are a volunteer of an organisation and not a paid employee where certain rules apply.

The Society elections were open and democratic. If you dont like someone for whatever reason you dont need to vote for them.

Coming on social media after the fact seems quite cheap.

[Mccus28]

9 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Maybe they didnt view it as big given the number and quality of the candidates though?

They voted in bigger numbers when it did matter, even though it maybe didnt in the end given Barmack pulled the plug, so I wouldnt get that animated about it.

If people had been elected that were not in line with what the members view is and the Society Board were once again split, that would be a bigger problem.

I like your passion at playing it down but I just don't agree.

Almost 80% who were able to vote, didn't, surely that, at the very least is a little alarming no matter how you wish to spin it.

Its not just the casual fan, its nearly 80% of people who, to this point have cared enough to be members with a vote.

[Well Well]

4 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

I like your passion at playing it down but I just don't agree.

Almost 80% who were able to vote, didn't, surely that, at the very least is a little alarming no matter how you wish to spin it.

Its not just the casual fan, its nearly 80% of people who, to this point have cared enough to be members with a vote.

You seem to be the only one a little alarmed. Right across the spectrum of elections in any sphere the turnout is usually low. I think your reading way too much into this.

[Mccus28]

Just now, Well Well said:

You seem to be the only one a little alarmed I know. Right across the spectrum of elections in any sphere the turnout is usually low. I think your reading way too much into this.

Possibly, but 22% is pathetic

[santheman]

Personally I think after years of the WS not really engaging with the membership people have become a little disinterested because no-one really knew what was going on behind the scenes.

Hopefully with all the improvements on the communication side which I'm pretty impressed by, more and more members will become more engaged when they see the new openness and regular information coming from the new board. Its like night and day compared to a couple of years ago.

 

[David]

11 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

No reason not to try David. We have a few fans in North America and 2 candidates there who have something to offer. If they're up for it  let's get them on board. At worst, what harm would it do? 

Oh, by all means! If there's a way for a workstream to include those US fans and those who think it's a good idea, then absolutely!

If a few US-based fans want to help spread the word, then that’s great.

11 hours ago, wellgirl said:

Surely if there are Motherwell fans like Chris then there could be other Motherwell fans all over the world. Look at the amount of fans who post on Facebook because of Bevis and the new boy we signed last week 

That's true, but from the perspective of the club and the society, what value do those Facebook fans from Uganda or elsewhere actually provide? Are they purchasing matchday tickets? Dining and drinking in the Cooper bar before a match? Buying season tickets? While someone posting on Facebook might seem cool, it doesn't really contribute any tangible value to the club or society.

I'm not sure how many Society members we have in Uganda just now?

11 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I get that but why shouldn't we encourage fans from other countries to get involved with us. Doesn't need to be a global brand. There are a few people on here who live in the US. I think we should be encouraging fans from all over the world 

As I said, most fans based overseas who support Motherwell tend to have family ties to the area, if they're not actually from the area themselves and have left for various reasons. 

10 hours ago, MWellChilders said:

You may be right and I may fail in my efforts. And yes, I think it would have likely failed in the past but good ole Hollywood has opened up the portal. Nobody cared about Wrexham either and look at them now. Reynolds and McElhiney's show about Wrexham opened Americans eyes to the concept of fan ownership. Outside of Green Bay Packers, which is kind of sort of fan owned, the concept has been foreign to most americans. Trust me when I say I believe people would absolutley love the chance to say the own part of soccer club, especially a society that grants voting rights and allows involvement.  

Wrexham has a lot to answer for, doesn’t it?

The truth is, no one cared about Wrexham before they were taken over, and honestly, no one cares about Wrexham now. People are interested in the owners of the club. That’s the real draw.

I’m fairly certain I saw somewhere that the new seasons of the documentary series included a clause in the contract requiring the owners to appear on screen for a minimum percentage of the time. The distributors know that the audience isn’t tuning in to see how Wrexham are performing, or because they’ve suddenly fallen in love with the club. They’re tuning in to see a reality series featuring two fairly well-known individuals who are willing to put themselves centre stage for entertainment.

Hasn’t Tom Brady invested in a football club as well? And the guy from Creed? Why aren’t they taking off and making huge waves in the US? It’s likely because there’s no compelling documentary story for people to follow.

The US interest isn’t in Wrexham. It’s in the “reality” show being filmed around it.

10 hours ago, daver said:

Caledonian Braves down Strathclyde Park are trying to tap into the US market and seem to have some success despite being at a much lower level than us with almost no fan base. I'd also say we offer a much more genuine fan ownership model than they do.

Sent from my SM-A715F using Tapatalk

That's a line that Barmack was also pushing, and there were numerous flaws and issues highlighted in that particular model. A great deal of information on Pie & Bovril was pointed out by people who know the entity and the business model far better than I do.

10 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:

 I know plenty of guys at work who watch podcasts/YouTube shows of oversea teams I’ve never heard of alongside watching guys playing golf, eating food and many other things so I don’t think that if something similar was done for the US market - possibly using US based fans alongside Motherwell based fans so it’s geared towards them - couldn’t find an audience which in turn could get some of them to join the society. It would all come down to cost of running it but if the price is reasonable why not try?

Ask those individuals who are watching those podcasts and YouTube shows if they’d be willing to pay a tenner a month to each channel in order to continue watching.

It’s not just about the cost of running it; it also concerns the amount of time that people involved need to invest. Having observed the various workstreams associated with the Society recently, it’s clear that their time is already stretched to the limit for many.

We have a multitude of tasks that need addressing, from revising and improving the governance, sorting out the executive board, and understanding why the representation from the Society board essentially "went rogue" on the Barmack vote, among other things.

As I mentioned, if we have US fans who want to get involved, donate their time, and create a US market workstream, then go for it; there’s certainly no harm in it.

The same applies to those who believe the US market is ripe for the taking. @wellgirl, you were expressing concern about the female representation on the Society board. You don’t need to be a board member to get involved. If you think we’re missing an opportunity in the US market, then get involved with others who share the same view and make it happen.

What I don’t agree with is people who think the Society should be pursuing this market or that market, but who expect others, whose availability is already stretched, to do the work.

51 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

The turnout for the WS election was less than 25% of those eligible to vote, it's the remaining 75% of the local WS members that the WS should be encouraging to get them to re-engage with the club to make fan ownership operate as it should.

That's an issue that needs addressing. The turnout was ridiculous, and there has to be something done to find out why that was the case.

[Spiderpig]

29 minutes ago, Well Well said:

You seem to be the only one a little alarmed. Right across the spectrum of elections in any sphere the turnout is usually low. I think your reading way too much into this.

With a 24.7% turnout It would be interesting to see the percentage split of the votes for those candidates elected. 

I can't remember if it was 4 or 6 posts up for grabs but that means that those elected may have won with as little as 4% of the vote each so potentially 96% of eligible voters either did not vote for them or didn't vote for anyone.

That's not a very stable basis / mandate going forward and shows that the vast majority of  members apparently have no Interest in the WS or who is running it, which is an unhealthy situation.

[David]

40 minutes ago, Well Well said:

You seem to be the only one a little alarmed.

No he isn't. Far from it, in fact.

[Electric Blues]

34 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

With a 24.7% turnout It would be interesting to see the percentage split of the votes for those candidates elected. 

I can't remember if it was 4 or 6 posts up for grabs but that means that those elected may have won with as little as 4% of the vote each so potentially 96% of eligible voters either did not vote for them or didn't vote for anyone.

With four votes per member, it's also possible that each candidate elected got 24.7% of the votes cast. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

It would indeed be instructive to see the actual results to clarify, although I suspect they would lie closer to my scenario than yours.

[Spiderpig]

8 minutes ago, Electric Blues said:

With four votes per member, it's also possible that each candidate elected got 24.7% of the votes cast. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

It would indeed be instructive to see the actual results to clarify, although I suspect they would lie closer to my scenario than yours.

A fair point but all it means is that at best 75% did not vote for them or didn't vote at all, slightly better than the 96% I mentioned, but it does not alter my point ie it's not a good basis going forward.

[Busta Nut]

Globalisation? 

Let's learn to walk before we start to run eh?

[dennyc]

I too was disappointed at the poor turnout % but I wonder if the 'eligible to vote' figure is a misleading starting point. Making the voting turnout look worse than than it actually was. Quoting 3 or 4k Membership is good PR when building up the WS but has the opposite effect when it comes to voting turnout. I wonder what the turnout % would be if gauged against active Membership?

As has been said before there are many reasons for the difference between active and inactive Membership...... out of date contact details, folk who joined on a one off basis such as former players and original sign ups like myself, folk passing away, personal circumstances.  Not everyone has become inactive through lack of interest although that will have played a part and needs addressed. A figure for those re-engaging or joining for the first time might be a better indicator?

It is something that requires investigating though. I am sure that everyone who took part in discussions would have made the effort to vote. I know for a fact that my little band fired in their nominations. 

 

 

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, Mccus28 said:

I like your passion at playing it down but I just don't agree.

Almost 80% who were able to vote, didn't, surely that, at the very least is a little alarming no matter how you wish to spin it.

Its not just the casual fan, its nearly 80% of people who, to this point have cared enough to be members with a vote.

Not trying to play it down at all.

Obviously it would be far better if all our members were fully engaged in Society matters all the time. Not just when we need to keep the wolf from the door.

Im just not overly concerned right now as we have seen significant change in the Society in the last 12 months in the way it operates and its plan for the future.

I have every faith that the right people are now in place and will be looking to address the many issues both it and the club have going forward.

[MWellChilders]

10 hours ago, fizoxy said:

Memphis. We have a bass pro shop in a pyramid, and crime.

I am in Nashville.

[0Neils40yarder]

2 hours ago, David said:

Oh, by all means! If there's a way for a workstream to include those US fans and those who think it's a good idea, then absolutely!

If a few US-based fans want to help spread the word, then that’s great.

That's true, but from the perspective of the club and the society, what value do those Facebook fans from Uganda or elsewhere actually provide? Are they purchasing matchday tickets? Dining and drinking in the Cooper bar before a match? Buying season tickets? While someone posting on Facebook might seem cool, it doesn't really contribute any tangible value to the club or society.

I'm not sure how many Society members we have in Uganda just now?

As I said, most fans based overseas who support Motherwell tend to have family ties to the area, if they're not actually from the area themselves and have left for various reasons. 

Wrexham has a lot to answer for, doesn’t it?

The truth is, no one cared about Wrexham before they were taken over, and honestly, no one cares about Wrexham now. People are interested in the owners of the club. That’s the real draw.

I’m fairly certain I saw somewhere that the new seasons of the documentary series included a clause in the contract requiring the owners to appear on screen for a minimum percentage of the time. The distributors know that the audience isn’t tuning in to see how Wrexham are performing, or because they’ve suddenly fallen in love with the club. They’re tuning in to see a reality series featuring two fairly well-known individuals who are willing to put themselves centre stage for entertainment.

Hasn’t Tom Brady invested in a football club as well? And the guy from Creed? Why aren’t they taking off and making huge waves in the US? It’s likely because there’s no compelling documentary story for people to follow.

The US interest isn’t in Wrexham. It’s in the “reality” show being filmed around it.

That's a line that Barmack was also pushing, and there were numerous flaws and issues highlighted in that particular model. A great deal of information on Pie & Bovril was pointed out by people who know the entity and the business model far better than I do.

Ask those individuals who are watching those podcasts and YouTube shows if they’d be willing to pay a tenner a month to each channel in order to continue watching.

It’s not just about the cost of running it; it also concerns the amount of time that people involved need to invest. Having observed the various workstreams associated with the Society recently, it’s clear that their time is already stretched to the limit for many.

We have a multitude of tasks that need addressing, from revising and improving the governance, sorting out the executive board, and understanding why the representation from the Society board essentially "went rogue" on the Barmack vote, among other things.

As I mentioned, if we have US fans who want to get involved, donate their time, and create a US market workstream, then go for it; there’s certainly no harm in it.

The same applies to those who believe the US market is ripe for the taking. @wellgirl, you were expressing concern about the female representation on the Society board. You don’t need to be a board member to get involved. If you think we’re missing an opportunity in the US market, then get involved with others who share the same view and make it happen.

What I don’t agree with is people who think the Society should be pursuing this market or that market, but who expect others, whose availability is already stretched, to do the work.

That's an issue that needs addressing. The turnout was ridiculous, and there has to be something done to find out why that was the case.

Excellent post to be honest...absolute fantasy stuff from a few on here today 

[weeyin]

I think some posters can't get past the Wrexham situation when overseas fans are discussed.

I believe there are Society members from something like 20 different countries. If a few of them promote the club for free to others in the same country, what's the problem? If that leads to a few more dollars/euros/pounds spent with the club, more power to them. If it doesn't, no harm done.

 

 

[ropy]

2 hours ago, dennyc said:

I too was disappointed at the poor turnout % but I wonder if the 'eligible to vote' figure is a misleading starting point. Making the voting turnout look worse than than it actually was. Quoting 3 or 4k Membership is good PR when building up the WS but has the opposite effect when it comes to voting turnout. I wonder what the turnout % would be if gauged against active Membership?

 

 

 

Even defining active membership is difficult.  I would say anyone with a regular payment method set up or has contributed in the past 12 months (could be 18 or 24).

What if someone cancels their Direct Debit today, are they active?

Anyway it would be interesting to see the numbers. 

[Dee]

2 hours ago, dennyc said:

I too was disappointed at the poor turnout % but I wonder if the 'eligible to vote' figure is a misleading starting point. Making the voting turnout look worse than than it actually was. Quoting 3 or 4k Membership is good PR when building up the WS but has the opposite effect when it comes to voting turnout. I wonder what the turnout % would be if gauged against active Membership?

As has been said before there are many reasons for the difference between active and inactive Membership...... out of date contact details, folk who joined on a one off basis such as former players and original sign ups like myself, folk passing away, personal circumstances.  Not everyone has become inactive through lack of interest although that will have played a part and needs addressed. A figure for those re-engaging or joining for the first time might be a better indicator?

It is something that requires investigating though. I am sure that everyone who took part in discussions would have made the effort to vote. I know for a fact that my little band fired in their nominations. 

 

 

Without divulging too much before we are further down the line, I think this is a really important post that touches on where the Society is at for now.  

Members that attended the AGM or attended any recent sessions will be aware that we have recently implemented a new CRM system and a lot of the work carried out recently has been to find out more about our members; most importantly how many active members we actually have, why some may have lapsed, where opportunity lies, etc. 

@dennyc is absolutely spot on, quoting 3 or 4k membership is good PR when building up the Society but comes back to bite us when it comes to voting turnout. Some of the immediate work the new board will be getting stuck into is finding out how many active members we have, how we can get those who are in a position to do so to increase their subscription, how can we improve communications, etc. etc.

It's been touched on before but there is many reasons for that; junior members who lapsed and didn't continue as adults, members who paid up at the start and haven't contributed since, members who have passed away and the Society was never notified etc. It might sound silly but I actually think there's members out there who don't realise they are still a member because they've not contributed for a sustained period of time. 

It's arguably a historical failing of the Society that we're not totally on top of this, no hiding from that, but since the new board was elected back in October significant strides have been taken to improve this and we're getting there. 

There were 1,531 votes were cast in the investment proposal by Tuesday 16 July at 10am. 56% of eligible members. I get there was still a week to go but I think this percentage will actually be a lot higher than 56% if we were only counting active members. It should also be noted that around double voted in the elections than voted in favour or Erik's deal. I actually fully agree with those here who have raised concerns, regardless of the reasoning we need to have a lot more people engaging in the democratic process. 

Whilst this might be far from ideal, I actually think it presents a huge opportunity for income growth and a great opportunity to re-engage members and bring them on our journey. I keep banging this drum but I'm really confident about where we are at the moment and where we can go in the not too distant future.