Big Motherwell Administration Thread

[Geedub-MFC]

Fan ownership gives me the fear.

[wellboy1991]

Fan ownership gives me the fear.

Yup me too. It's a disaster I think in the making.

Every year the begging bowl will get trotted out.

[AberDon]

Karma, tick-tock etc

[Mr Gandosaur]

Fan ownership gives me the fear.

It was a disaster for us. Fans who got ideas above their station, voting pals onto boards and running it like a kangaroo court.

[thisGRAEME]

Fan ownership gives me the fear.

Same. Football fans are absolute morons, on the whole.

[kennysmassiveego]

If fan ownership involves people of the calibre that wanted to do something similar at KIllie God help you

Football clubs run by committees is asking for trouble , it may work at junior and amateur level but not at professional. Dictatorship is the way to go , hasn't harmed us

[harry94]

f**k sake. If we don't get our act together someone will overtake us in administrations.

[Rod]

I'm sure the authorities will, as always, do everything in their power to preserve our Premiership status. The true establishment club

But in all seriousness, letting supporters run football clubs is letting the lunatics run the asylum. The club is a total shambles, it speaks volumes when there is no chief exec and the top member of staff (below the board) is the clown who ran the twitter site.

Recently the club has done as well as it possibly can in the league, sold players for over £500k and got to the Scottish cup final. Where has all this money gone? If you can't live by your means whilst bringing in the most prize money you possibly can from the league then you've got your sums totally wrong.

I wouldn't base my personal finances on winning a 6 team accumulator once a month yet Motherwell base their budget on getting a run in the cup?

The sooner the club gets someone in who can use a calculator or at least isn't a total mouth breather the better.

[chomp my root]

It was a disaster for us. Fans who got ideas above their station, voting pals onto boards and running it like a kangaroo court.

Not sure about disaster, it wasn't exactly an unmitigated success but there are advantages to it as well as the negatives. With the owner scenario its a lucky dip, certainly Dundee have had our share of absolute bandits, it wasn't on the 'fans watch' that we went into admin (twice) but the flip side being there isn't as much cash either. If you could guarantee a St. Johnstone type regime then that would be ideal and I'd bit your hand off but while the owner model is a lottery, the fan owned model can be well meaning but inept. I don't think you're certain what you'll get whichever model you use.

[eindhovendee]

f**k sake. If we don't get our act together someone will overtake us in administrations.

Livi will make sure they lead the way.

We need to worry when they hit number three.

[paranoid android]

Hopefully not, lads and lasses - stick in!

[an-dee]

Not sure about disaster, it wasn't exactly an unmitigated success but there are advantages to it as well as the negatives. With the owner scenario its a lucky dip, certainly Dundee have had our share of absolute bandits, it wasn't on the 'fans watch' that we went into admin (twice) but the flip side being there isn't as much cash either. If you could guarantee a St. Johnstone type regime then that would be ideal and I'd bit your hand off but while the owner model is a lottery, the fan owned model can be well meaning but inept. I don't think you're certain what you'll get whichever model you use.

I always thought it was a bit of a disaster to be honest. Did they not have to be bailed out by Colvin's cash a couple of times? Was all for it when it happened but it just doesn't work for me.

[Alba16]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29839081

Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan to invest in MLS franchise

Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan says he is about to invest in a new Los Angeles-based Major League Soccer franchise.
Malaysian billionaire Tan, who also owns FK Sarajevo in Bosnia, also told the BBC he is seeking to invest in another unnamed European club.
"I'm still negotiating so I'm not saying what it is now," Tan, 62, said.
"I'm investing in a new franchise in LA. That's my personal private investment."
On Monday, Major League Soccer announced Chivas USA, the club that struggled for a decade to gain a foothold in Los Angeles, is folding and will be replaced by an expansion team in 2017.
The MLS is set to announce later on Thursday the expansion club that will replace Chivas USA.
"I believe the MLS will be a good investment," Tan added.
"I'm actually a minority partner. There are three parties, three shareholders from Asia.
"One is another Malaysian and one Vietnamese, so three of us."
Tan said he remained committed to Cardiff, the club he bought in May 2010, despite their relegation from the Premier League last season.

In 2011, Vincent Tan (L) hired Malky Mackay ® who led Cardiff to their first League Cup final in 2012 and promotion to the Premier League in 2013.
Cardiff are 11th in the Championship table, seven points off leaders Derby County.
Former Leyton Orient boss Russell Slade, who was appointed on 6 October, is the fourth permanent manager to serve under Tan's reign.
Dave Jones's six-year reign at the Welsh club was ended in May 2011, with Malky Mackay taking charge.
Mackay steered the club to the Premier League but was sacked in December 2013 with Cardiff one point above the relegation zone.
Former Manchester United striker Ole Gunnar Solskjaer then took charge but failed to save the club from relegation and left after eight months in September.
"I enjoy investing in a football club and I believe that you can make money in a football club," Tan said.
"I didn't really start off well investing in football, I wasn't that lucky.
"But there are a lot of clever owners who make money every year so I now understand the business so much better.
"I joked that I invested so much money in Cardiff and it is my tuition fees to learn the football business."

Are Claret and Amber considered lucky in the East Asia?

[chomp my root]

I always thought it was a bit of a disaster to be honest. Did they not have to be bailed out by Colvin's cash a couple of times? Was all for it when it happened but it just doesn't work for me.

I'm not sure if they were dependent on the bail out but as far as I know money was pretty tight but arguably that was because we were such a dodgy outfit that the banks wouldn't touch us due to the admins brought about by owners. I thought the Society made a pretty poor job of it in a lot of ways but I don't see that as being any different to an owner who makes dodgy decisions. I reckon if you have the right (or best) people running the club then either model will have its positives and negatives. Having seen how things unfolded with us one thing I did notice was that the Board was cut absolutely no slack by fellow fans when it was 'fan run' where as there is more of an resigned acceptance when its a 'El Presidente' who makes a decision thats unpopular or fails, the logic behind that maybe needs looked at by fans. Even with the owner model, there are plenty Dundee supporters who would have the Marr's back but are reluctant to go back to the 'fan owned', this mentality seems to prejudice the 'fan owned' model that a lot of us admire in the Bundesliga.

[Gaz FFC]

Surely that's too easy? Gaz(FFC) is like a fucking homing pigeon.

Here's Johnny

[Addie]

I think I curse any team I support.

Might buy a Celtic shirt at the weekend.

[an-dee]

I'm not sure if they were dependent on the bail out but as far as I know money was pretty tight but arguably that was because we were such a dodgy outfit that the banks wouldn't touch us due to the admins brought about by owners. I thought the Society made a pretty poor job of it in a lot of ways but I don't see that as being any different to an owner who makes dodgy decisions. I reckon if you have the right (or best) people running the club then either model will have its positives and negatives. Having seen how things unfolded with us one thing I did notice was that the Board was cut absolutely no slack by fellow fans when it was 'fan run' where as there is more of an resigned acceptance when its a 'El Presidente' who makes a decision thats unpopular or fails, the logic behind that maybe needs looked at by fans. Even with the owner model, there are plenty Dundee supporters who would have the Marr's back but are reluctant to go back to the 'fan owned', this mentality seems to prejudice the 'fan owned' model that a lot of us admire in the Bundesliga.

To be fair I don't think it's a flaw with fan ownership structures in general, but with our fan ownership. The only way it works is with a subscription fee in my opinion, like the Barcelona model. I'd be more than happy to see DFCSS charging say, £10 a month that's being invested in exchange for shares, rather than relying on race nights etc. like an amateur club!

[chomp my root]

To be fair I don't think it's a flaw with fan ownership structures in general, but with our fan ownership. The only way it works is with a subscription fee in my opinion, like the Barcelona model. I'd be more than happy to see DFCSS charging say, £10 a month that's being invested in exchange for shares, rather than relying on race nights etc. like an amateur club!

I don't know if you're a member of DFCSS but I've just been sent a questionaire/poll thing where they're trying to canvas about where the Society should be putting 'our' money. I'm keen on the Society getting more of a say and whether that means buying as many shares as we can to build towards ownership (I believe the Society's holding has dropped to less than 20% now). I pay a tenner a month for Gold and I would be happy to throw in more if it was going to either shares or buying back Dens. As I posted earlier, a Society Board seemed to be under fire a lot more than an 'owner' which seemed to me to make things more difficult for the Board to operate. I'm not saying we as fans/shareholders shouldn't be able to question the Board but some of the stuff that Dave Forbes and Fraser McDonald were getting was pretty vile. I've not liked some of the people who have been involved with the DFCSS/DFC XYZ (I can't keep up with all the various groups) but I don't think for a second that they didn't want the best (as they saw it) for the club, I'm sure there were big dreams being fulfilled along the way and ego's on steroids but that's unfortunately human nature and from what I hear there's been a fair bit of that going on anyway.

[an-dee]

I don't know if you're a member of DFCSS but I've just been sent a questionaire/poll thing where they're trying to canvas about where the Society should be putting 'our' money. I'm keen on the Society getting more of a say and whether that means buying as many shares as we can to build towards ownership (I believe the Society's holding has dropped to less than 20% now). I pay a tenner a month for Gold and I would be happy to throw in more if it was going to either shares or buying back Dens. As I posted earlier, a Society Board seemed to be under fire a lot more than an 'owner' which seemed to me to make things more difficult for the Board to operate. I'm not saying we as fans/shareholders shouldn't be able to question the Board but some of the stuff that Dave Forbes and Fraser McDonald were getting was pretty vile. I've not liked some of the people who have been involved with the DFCSS/DFC XYZ (I can't keep up with all the various groups) but I don't think for a second that they didn't want the best (as they saw it) for the club, I'm sure there were big dreams being fulfilled along the way and ego's on steroids but that's unfortunately human nature and from what I hear there's been a fair bit of that going on anyway.

Like you I pay my £10 a month for gold and would also be happy to pay more if I knew it was going towards buying dens back, for example. I do think it's important that we own a fair amount of shares. I'm not sure of the exact figure now to be honest but 20% seems on the low side to me. I agree that they wanted the best for the club, any fan would, even if it is different from the way I might have done it! (Not suggesting that I would be capable of doing it by the way, fair play to the guys for putting in a lot of time unpaid!)

[chomp my root]

Like you I pay my £10 a month for gold and would also be happy to pay more if I knew it was going towards buying dens back, for example. I do think it's important that we own a fair amount of shares. I'm not sure of the exact figure now to be honest but 20% seems on the low side to me. I agree that they wanted the best for the club, any fan would, even if it is different from the way I might have done it! (Not suggesting that I would be capable of doing it by the way, fair play to the guys for putting in a lot of time unpaid!)

Ditto, it would have to be a big lottery win and the 'El Presidente' route for me.

Its easy to sit and snipe from the sidelines though and for whatever reason it seems its more acceptable if its 'one of us' which is a bit tight on those that have stepped up. All the "only in it for the blazer" stuff is a bit unnecessary, if people feel that strongly about it then they can vote them off under the fan owned model, the problem is there aren't a lot of people who are willing to throw their hat in the ring and I suspect the amount of abuse getting tossed around doesn't make that more likely. Definitely part of the downside of being fan owned.