Handsome_Devil

Erik does remind me of the monorail salesman tbf.

Ooooh, an issue 1...very impressive. Biased too but GLF (and broader fanzine culture in general) was cracking back in the day. It's one of these things where explaining to youngsters who post about the game literally while watching it that you had four weeks to collate your thoughts and six-eight to see it in print is wonderful. I genuinely think the quicker world in those terms contributes to the ever decreasing patience with managers.

Ah, right. You replied to a question asking if any foreigner had taken over and been a long-term success, I was just meaning LH was not. Being local certainly isn't the only - or even main - factor in whether you're a positive or negative but for me at least it establishes some credibility. Les came in with a clear motive and exit strategy - stabilising his local club and handing it over to the community. Of course he could have screwed us over but there was more reason to believe him than some guy who stuck a pin in a map and decided he looks good in claret and amber. I freely admit I'm sceptical of him, even though I like the idea of what he could bring, but I'm happy to see the details. I just think the attitude of some fans - claiming fan ownership has failed and giving the impression they'd bend over instantly for any cheque - is incredibly dangerous.

Probably not, though I don't see the relevance of your point?

Excellent points from the both of you and as someone who is very concerned about the 51% thing, EB with his (presumed) attitude is someone who I'd absolutely love to have on board if the deal is right. And of course we can wait and see the written offer but then what would we do when we're supposed to be working all day?

He was literally born a few* miles from the stadium! *Taking a liberty with few here but Lanarkshire's not that big.

"Barmack, a former Netflix vice president, recently entered into an agreement on non-binding heads of terms with the three-man Motherwell board over a deal which would see him become the majority shareholder of the fan-owned club." That's been presented as a fact known and/or confirmed by GM rather than just the rumour or conjecture the rest of us have. As @StAndrew7says, it's poorly edited that this isn't given context, ie sources within the club/society.

No.

Ha, me too. But I'd disagree with the last bit, the buyer can come out and say lots much more easily than the seller. He's said it's fact we'll be asked to give up control which is in contrast to the spirit and impression EB so carefully gave hours before, even if he was vague in his wording. I don't think it's massive in the grand scheme of things either, it's a perfect example of fish and chip paper tomorrow, but it's news today for sure.

Your journalistic criticism is entirely fair, it's just not necessarily fair to direct it at GM. I mean it might be but nobody other than him or his sports desk know that. As for folk needing sacked, well, that's pretty subjective as well. There's no doubt breaking a non-NDA is serious and not to be done lightly but if someone (some two? three?) in FP sees the more, eh, gung-ho members of our support get carried away by the mistaken thought of riches, and Erik setting a narrative in the BBC they believe to be false having seen the details, are they not to be commended for taking personal risk in a bid to set the record straight a little?

I absolutely love Scottish football at times, we must be the only industry that is desperate for customers that frequently makes it so needless hard to actually go to games.

He fannied the Killie comparison for sure but I think he'll turn out to be straight down the on piste with this one when we see the details...time will tell.

It's definitely not poor from all involved, it's literally GM's job to dig out stories And sure, whoever is leaking may have an agenda but for GM all that matters is it's factually true - now everyone will judge themselves whether to believe the rumours we've seen but personally when I weigh up what has been said and by whom, my reading of various financials and balancing the probabilities, I'm pretty confident he's reporting the truth in terms of the deal. And if it stinks, well that's certainly problematic in one way, yes, but if the media is the only way those in the know can alert us early to perceived danger or risk, is that still a bad thing? Remember the irregular verb from 'Yes, Minister': "I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act." So hat-tip to GM for me ,assuming he's got his sources checked properly, and a wrap on the knuckles for his subbie.

We've all heard the rumours of what the deal was, I suspect GM has it from sources. I find it a little sloppy from the Herald this wasn't made clear. Put it this way, despite the soft soap words on the BBC, if you had to bet right now on whether the deal saw us lose control or not, I know where most people would put their chips. We obviously don't need to do that but if that's the offer, even if he's an interesting guy, I'd be telling him to jog on.

Quite the change for a club that doesn't even bother tweeting the youth team games! I'm not especially into these things but hasn't that been done before?

Yeah, you're not wrong in principle but football clubs, not just ours, have leaked like sieves for years and probably always will.

If I'm feeling optimistic, I'd say that's a very positive interview. If it's true, he should understand our concerns and have a partnership where he can get some return while we protect ourselves. Alternatively if he says all that then still insists on 51% it would be quite the red flag. My only worry is some of our fans would happily hand over control based on an interview where he promises to be nice!

Not an if as in you believe him or not an if as in you think he's full of shit? One person's rumour is another's inside scoop...up to you.

Fair play, if that's true, it's almost impossible to argue with on principle. However, that's still a big if for me. It certainly doesn't tie in with what was said at the AGM or the rumours about the early talks. And it's far from convincing on just why he's bothering to do this if he's not after profit... buying some wee club thousands of miles away as a toy just cause you like football? Nah... But he's talking a good game which at least seems to show some understanding of our potential concerns. An interesting start, for sure.

Can only echo what's been said but while you can easily predict a five or six goal thriller, I could also imagine Dundee winning early drains the energy from our game and it's goalless or 1-0 either way. Would like to see SOD in for Devine, Miller for Halliday.

Dundee having a last game after Saturday definitely changes things, potentially to their advantage. Couple of examples assuming Rangers won tonight I'd dreamt up for out thread. If we're 0-0 v Hibs with 15 to go (don't laugh, or call it 2-2) and Dundee are losing 1-0, of course we need to risk everything and go for it but Hibs are in a wonderful dilemma. They'll know Dundee will also be risking everything for a goal so do they shut up shop for their draw and rely on Aberdeen holding on as well or do they keep pushing for a winner incase Dundee score? If both games are draws late on, Dundee will also know a late winner likely at Fir Park (because both will be playing 2-3-5 at this point) which means they'll probably feel obliged to go for it a bit as well (in case the goal falls for Hibs) which opens the risk Aberdeen mug them. I'm not overly fussed because 1) we've been shite and don't deserve it 2) I didn't think you'd lose on Saturday 3) even if it worked out we've no chance of catching St Mirren 4) the sheer joy of the Rangers statement So batter in and play next Wednesday. I am curious though, could the spfl have ordered a venue change as plan B, is that in the rules? Dundee obviously don't give a f**k about the split so there's no way they volunteer to do anything other than what they've done. I imagine Hibs and their fans will generally feel more hard done by than me mind.

Rangers have taken the news in the calm and dignified manner you'd expect.

There were also eyebrows raised on the Dundee thread the other day about their season ticket prices for next year. The club currently will charge fans as much as we can, while balancing short and long-term benefit, and you know 100% that any excess money will be reinvested in the club/community. Have an investor in charge and it's entirely possible your season ticket price increase is labelled profit and sent to someone else who gives precisely zero fucks about the club beyond 2027. I seem to have fallen into the trap of appearing to be very against all investment, I'm actually not. It's a nuanced thing and everyone should come to personal judgements weighing up risks, rewards and god knows how many ifs, buts and maybes. But seeing people treat this as a cut and dried case because fan ownership has "failed" and "investment is needed to take us to the next level" makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

Or if we could look and see the medium/long-term success stories from other clubs with investors.

Anonymous.