DonGoodman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Surely if they're on the board then they hope to excert an influence on board decisions? So supposedly there's a voice on behalf of the fans in amongst all the suits. Is that the idea? This thread is confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airfinz Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Surely if they're on the board then they hope to excert an influence on board decisions? So supposedly there's a voice on behalf of the fans in amongst all the suits. Is that the idea? This thread is confusing. Yeah, I take that as a given. However, they would have little power, and it appears to me to be more of a 'watch & listen' brief - which adds no value whatsoever! I can see no reason other than the 'cos we want to.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev IM Jolly Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yes, the board member would have a voice (and ears) in board meetings, and a vote in decisions where appropriate, which would be cast solely with the fans interests in mind, one would have to assume. It's a common goal of supporter's trusts in the UK and I don't personally see what's so difficult to understand, I would have thought it a no brainer for the body to hold such an ambition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airfinz Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yes, the board member would have a voice (and ears) in board meetings, and a vote in decisions where appropriate, which would be cast solely with the fans interests in mind, one would have to assume. It's a common goal of supporter's trusts in the UK and I don't personally see what's so difficult to understand, I would have thought it a no brainer for the body to hold such an ambition. That still to me does not warrant the inclusion. Just because it's a common goal among supporters trusts does not make it beneficial. For what it's worth, I dont think there is any place for a fan on any board; on the basis that he is first and foremost a fan! Any votes that he made may be too emotive, and if acting in the interest of the club, could be a conflict of interest; as the interests of the club and those of a select bunch of fans (ie the Trust) can be very contrasting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky79 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 What so there should be no fans on the board? I take it as a given that by and large at a club like ours the board members(some) are fans, albeit somewhat removed from the average fan in the terraces etc. People might have other interests but I doubt Chapman put the time he did into club just to get the pie contract. Times move on and it probably doesn't hold as true as maybe once did but I see no problem with a fan or fan representative on the board. Yes no one body can represent everyones views but better some sort of majority than none. And yes the fan board member could be easily enough sidlined from meaningful decisions but at very least get a lot more transparency and an idea of what is going on re running of club what and why is happening. It not the solution to all our problems but it could and should if done properly improve communication between club and fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonGoodman Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 For what it's worth, I dont think there is any place for a fan on any board; on the basis that he is first and foremost a fan! Any votes that he made may be too emotive, and if acting in the interest of the club, could be a conflict of interest; as the interests of the club and those of a select bunch of fans (ie the Trust) can be very contrasting. I think thats a fair enough point if you believe it to be a conflict of interest. I can see in some areas where looking at something from a business perspective only would certainly make sense. However how would you stand with issues such as the cooper and the new ticketing scheme for the old firm that failed so miserably? Would you not rather have a fans rep debating our side in those situations? I'm working on the assumption that the rep would of course have a say. I don't know too much about any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 However how would you stand with issues such as the cooper and the new ticketing scheme for the old firm that failed so miserably? Would you not rather have a fans rep debating our side in those situations?And this is the problem. Even in the Cooper situation, there wasn't an "our side" to take. I read a number of postings on the old board that said they weren't opposed to the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev IM Jolly Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 That still to me does not warrant the inclusion. Just because it's a common goal among supporters trusts does not make it beneficial. For what it's worth, I dont think there is any place for a fan on any board; on the basis that he is first and foremost a fan! Any votes that he made may be too emotive, and if acting in the interest of the club, could be a conflict of interest; as the interests of the club and those of a select bunch of fans (ie the Trust) can be very contrasting. In which case you are basically broadly against the idea of supporter's Trusts in general then. I can understand the point you make, to an extent, however as you already point out there is relatively little influence in real tangible terms as the shareholding the trust would hold is likely to be small. In which case it allows a modest influence in terms of decision making, but it does undisputably give a guaranteed platform for the fans views to be aired, which in my opinion is the whole point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 'Flow Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 There-in lies the difficulty of the whole process... However, I don't think the Trust wants or claims to strive for a representative on the board for the entire 'Well support, it would purely be for the benefit of the Motherwell Supporters Trust and its members. The theory goes that with a direct place on the board, the Trust could present themselves to the wider support as a direct avenue to the Chairman and the people who run the club - hopefully then attracting a bigger membership and having a much clearer mandate from the support. However, the big problem arises from the fact that 'Well fans (like most others probably) are very different in so many different ways with so many differing opinions. It would be very difficult to get such a cast-iron viewpoint on every issue and you've also got the problem of trying to gather each and every individual opinion of each member for any contentious decision (albeit the board are elected to represent but I don't think there has been one single election since its inception due to a lack of numbers). For what it is worth, I was on the Board of the Trust for many years and ironically, quite a few of the people now defending it vigorously on here were the very same people posting almost identical things to me. I applaud Fraz and Speedie (and Sparra) for coming on here and fighting a difficult fight - I went through the exact same thing myself and still do at times with the club. On that note, I resigned my position on the board of the MST the moment I agreed to go and work for the club because I personally didn't want there to be any issues or accusations surrounding conflicts of interests and I felt strongly about that. I took the same step with WTFC/SO too which wasn't easy for me! FWIW, I am still a fully paid up member of the Motherwell Supporters Trust and support their aims and objectives (to a degree - although there are one or two major ones that I strongly disagree with i.e. the pursuit for more shares). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnnyDefault Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 The board should just post their agenda's on here a week or so prior to their meetings - with a poll attached for the differing viewpoints. And allow us to shotgun the shit out of it. We'd (MFC) go from strength to strength in a matter of minutes when you see some of the well balanced views on here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky79 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 What is your issue over pursuit of shares Flow? A controlling shareholding is so far away as to be pie in the sky and therefore maybe it doesn't seem worth the effort for a few more here and there? I aware the trust has spent money its raised on stuff that benefitted the club, this a better idea for raised funds? I like the idea in theory of fans controlling the direction of the club, is there not a couple of lower league english clubs in that position. Anyone any idea how they getting on with that? Personally if a controlling interest can't be reached then little point spending money on shares. A shareholding shouldn't be required for fans views to be considered. How much money do fans pump into club as it is. I'd go as far as to say the trust shouldn' t necesarily be a fundraising body. If it wants to get a mandate from the fans it should seek to throw open membership for free to all that wish to get involved. Fill out a form, and seek to gather thoughts, opinions and ideas on all issues. Could be tricky to organise but it would certainly help make the trust seem more of an open body that isn't looking for anything from anyone but the time and effort they wish to invest. With the chairmanship the biggest issue to be resolved, it could even be passed round to all members on a rota, not a position to be elected to but a responsability for all even if only briefly that are concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hampden'91 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Back to the initial point of this thread – Should the views of the Well Boys and the Trust not be of equal importance as both are paying fans that keep our beloved club alive. I am not versed enough of the internal politics of the trust to pass comment on its running or benefit but as its main objectives are to ensure that fans have a say in the running of the club should it not be make more widely open and available to the “ordinary” fan and not a self elected elitists group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 'Flow Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 What is your issue over pursuit of shares Flow? A controlling shareholding is so far away as to be pie in the sky and therefore maybe it doesn't seem worth the effort for a few more here and there? I aware the trust has spent money its raised on stuff that benefitted the club, this a better idea for raised funds? That is it in a nutshell... I believe, from memory, the Trust have 5,200 (which, if I had to buy outright, would cost me £520,000) shares at the minute. That's a nice wee total but they would have the very self same say if they have 10,400 or 20,800. The only real benefit to building up to having something like 20,000 shares would be, I would assume, having the kudos of having the second biggest share in Motherwell Football & Athletic Club. Because in terms of actually having a say, the Trust would still have the same "say" as me, for example, and I have 1 share. Whilst I would never discourage investment into the club in any shape or form, I personally think that money would be much better invested in targeted campaigns that we've seen in the past (with the Football Dpt and perhaps more predominantly, Youth Development in mind). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 In what way is the Trust not available to the ordinary fan? You can join the Trust on the website, you can get membership forms from the ticket office and, going forward, you'll hopefully be able to pick them up from the Ladbrokes kiosk in the East Stand or the Cooper suite on matchdays. So, in short, it is easy to join the Trust for anyone who goes to home matches, can get to Fir Park during office hours, or has access to the internet. Is there any 'Well fan on the planet that doesn't fall into any of these categories? Frazzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 That's a fair point 'Flow, but we also have the Pitch In! fund, which is entirely seperate, and we'll happily hand over the cash for that when the club need it. They are now more than a year overdue on the disabled enclosure, and we're just waiting to fund it. Frazzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JohnnyDefault Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Back to the initial point of this thread – Should the views of the Well Boys and the Trust not be of equal importance as both are paying fans that keep our beloved club alive. I am not versed enough of the internal politics of the trust to pass comment on its running or benefit but as its main objectives are to ensure that fans have a say in the running of the club should it not be make more widely open and available to the "ordinary" fan and not a self elected elitists group. That's exactly what's being discussed here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I was a member of the Trust Board for several years and am still a member of the Trust. Given that I think I can see arguments on both sides. I can honestly say that the Trust Board members put in a lot of hard work for no personal gain. Yes, I admit some fans do have issues with various things such as Martin's position. If folk feel so strongly about that or other issues then join up and fight for change. No point in sniping from the sidelines. Be a "positive pest". The more folk who join up the more credibility and influence the Trust will have. Its not always easy for the Trust Board to gauge opinion of the members - originally the Cooper Stand issue split the membership and I well recall some members resigning when some support was offered for a No campaign. Folk shouldn't assume that all fans agree with them. Fans like Frazzle, Speedie, JWOK etc have my admiration for the voluntary work they put in. As I keep on saying if you don't like then join up and change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 'Flow Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 That's a fair point 'Flow, but we also have the Pitch In! fund, which is entirely seperate, and we'll happily hand over the cash for that when the club need it. They are now more than a year overdue on the disabled enclosure, and we're just waiting to fund it. Frazzle To be honest Fraz, that was getting talked about a year before I resigned from the Trust Board so it's probably about three years overdue. There has actually been some forward movement on that issue due an additional offer of investment so perhaps some sort of partnership could be ideal. I'll actually take the bull by the horns on that one and get someone to get back to you in the next seven days. On the Share debate, I would encourage the Trust (this is just my personal opinion as a paid up member btw) to write to everyone who contributed to that particular share fund (I did for 3 years) and ask their permission to merge the total collected with the general account to give you increased capital for projects (like, for example, a revamp of the disabled facilities). I know I would certainly welcome it for the reasons I have detailed above. Having 5,200 shares is no different to having 20,000 shares so it is the metaphorical equivalent of burning your donations then flushing the cinders down the pan. One combined fund for investment to projects then try (if possible) to get shares equivalent to what you've spent as has been done in the past. Spending money directly purchasing shares from current owners (be in small scale or larger) is just crazy if you ask me. 'Flow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedie Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 To be honest Fraz, that was getting talked about a year before I resigned from the Trust Board so it's probably about three years overdue. There has actually been some forward movement on that issue due an additional offer of investment so perhaps some sort of partnership could be ideal. I'll actually take the bull by the horns on that one and get someone to get back to you in the next seven days. On the Share debate, I would encourage the Trust (this is just my personal opinion as a paid up member btw) to write to everyone who contributed to that particular share fund (I did for 3 years) and ask their permission to merge the total collected with the general account to give you increased capital for projects (like, for example, a revamp of the disabled facilities). I know I would certainly welcome it for the reasons I have detailed above. Having 5,200 shares is no different to having 20,000 shares so it is the metaphorical equivalent of burning your donations then flushing the cinders down the pan. One combined fund for investment to projects then try (if possible) to get shares equivalent to what you've spent as has been done in the past. Spending money directly purchasing shares from current owners (be in small scale or larger) is just crazy if you ask me. 'Flow Good post Flow. The Trust recently have had an assurance from John Boyle that any money donated to the club for projects would result in the issue of shares to the equivalent value, just as in the past. Bearing this in mind your suggestion to look at the usage of the Share Fund seems completely reasonable to me. The sum of the Project Fund has been committed to the improvement of disabled facilities from before my time on the board. This project is long overdue as the disabled section at Fir Park is shockingly bad, let's hope that we get some movement on this over the next few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 'Flow Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Yep, and I welcome and commend the MST for that commitment. I don't know how much is in the share fund (it was detailed at the AGM but my memory has got the better of me and I don't have a copy to hand) but it certainly is a good base in which to start and re-grow a proper balance if the full capital in the Project Fund has been earmarked for the aforementioned disabled facilities re-vamp. If JB has agreed to give you shares to the value of your investment, then surely by definition, it neglects the need to have a specific fund purely for the purchasing of shares on their own (Which, as I've said, I think is pointless anyway)? Surely everyone wins if that money is re-invested in projects because you'll be get your like-for-like back in shares as opposed to handing over hard cash to increase your numbers total on a certificate (which, to be fair to the long-term MST Board members, has been standard ops for a good while) ? 'Flow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaag Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 can non members of the Trust have a look at a schedule of what you have done in the last year or so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedie Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 You can piece together an overview from the minutes on the site. I did note from Flow's post earlier in the thread that there are a few missing. I'll take this up at the meeting tomorrow night. From last year there was a number of fundraising social events like the Sixes on the astro at Fir Park and the Quiz Night, which was well attended the night of the UEFA Cup draw. We also made applications on behalf of youth development for funding. Met with the then Chief Executive around communication and ticketing issues and again more recently with John Boyle and Leeann Dempster. The Trust is also persuing the fan's memorial to Phil O'Donnell, helped with ticket distribution and publicity for the Evening with Tam Cowan and are now organising a second event for the cause. If it's something specific that your looking for I'm happy to field questions on here or by e-mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I think your opinion on the share issue is pretty reasonable. Of course, we'd have to have an official agreement in writing from John Boyle that we'd get the return before we emptied the coffers, rather than just a verbal agreement in principle, and that could be where the problem lies. When I said that the disabled enclosure was overdue by over a year, I was referring to the only time (to my knowledge) that the club put a deadline on it. The deadline we were given was that it would be completed before Christmas 2007. But yes, you're absolutely right when you say that it's been much longer overdue in terms of how long the fund has been going. I'm really pleased that this thread has grown to such a length, and that the majority of posts - even the negative ones - have been constructive. Just to summarise, at the meeting tonight I shall raise the following points: - Merging the share fund into the Pitch In! fund. - Updating the website with any missing minutes. - Re-branding the organisation. Is there any other points anyone feels are significant? Frazzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mon_da_well Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Just to summarise, at the meeting tonight I shall raise the following points: - Merging the share fund into the Pitch In! fund. - Updating the website with any missing minutes. - Re-branding the organisation. - Mon_Da_Well for chairman Is there any other points anyone feels are significant? Frazzle Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzie Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.