David1979

A number of us have, and we've posted our viewpoints and questions over the past number of pages of this thread.

To an extent, we do. You've made it clear. Which is what he was replying to.

Can we get a new Motherwell thread for the upcoming season and have this one locked and saved forever? We can't allow the past few month's worth of pages to simply fade away into oblivion. This surely has to be one of those chapters in Scottish football that rank alongside Giovanni Di Stefano buying Dundee and wanting to sign Edgar Davids. @Erik Barmack you'll forever be remembered I reckon!

Those WhatsApp exchanges are simply incredible. The notion of Stuart Kettlewell showing up to training on a random Tuesday next season with Stevie Frail to find two new Latin American players sitting in the cafeteria, each cradling a lukewarm tea from the machine and poking suspiciously at some traditional Scottish fare is amazing. "Who are these guys?" "Erik signed them last night. They're here to represent a tequila brand from the US run by one of Erik's chums. We've to make sure they see no less than 20 minutes per game, for at least 2 out of every 4 games. That's the deal we struck with the company." Jesus Christ! And the idea of playing a "home" Old Firm game at Wembley Stadium? Even if that was attempted, the logistics of it are insane. Would Celtic or Rangers even agree to this? Would the league itself allow it to happen? How would we get our fans down to the stadium? Who are the other 86,000 fans we'd need to fill the stadium? I’m guessing this can be filed under one of the "bad ideas" that Erik admits to having. On a more serious note, I wonder if the executive board at our club knew about these proposals? That the new investor who wants to become Chairman sees it as part of his remit to go over the manager's head when it comes to signings? Did our new CEO know about this? Did he vote in favour of this deal? I return to my message from a while ago. We need to not only reject this offer, but we need to begin the serious task of completely rewiring this club on the governance front from top to bottom.

Also, separate from the above, you didn't answer this question. I think it's pretty important that we know exactly who you're talking to about a revised offer?

Can I assume you have presented a detailed business plan to both the Well Society board and the club's Executive Board and simply don't wish to share it here? Or are you saying you don't have a business plan at all at the moment? You mention having only 10% of the information you need. Surely, as an investor, you'd want to have all the necessary information before making an offer to purchase 49% of any company? Isn't that basic due diligence? Are you essentially asking the Well Society to sell you a 49% shareholding, give up control of the club, commit future funds from its members without consulting them, and forgo almost half a million pounds owed to the Society by the club, based entirely on having only 10% of the information needed for a coherent plan? I don't wish to sound harsh, but that approach seems incredibly haphazard to me. Your work at Netflix showcases your ability to nurture compelling content. The success of "Drive to Survive" further highlights your capability to create engaging sports content. Similarly, the potential docuseries and other media initiatives you propose for Motherwell could greatly enhance the club's global visibility, brand recognition, and fan engagement, aligning well with our goal of reaching a broader audience and generating additional revenue streams. However, the disparity between what you bring to the table and what you're requesting in return is quite significant, in my view. For the Well Society to relinquish a controlling stake in the club, write off nearly half a million pounds of contributions from hard-working members, and essentially match the financial commitment you're proposing, it would necessitate an offer far more substantial than what is currently being presented. I dare say such an offer would likely exceed your current scope. Please understand this isn't meant in a disparaging manner. I believe there is potential for a deal, but there's absolutely no way you can expect to receive 49% control (or even close to it), ask the Society to increase contributions to the extent you have (without consulting them first, I believe), and ask them to forego nearly half a million pounds of contributors funds in the name of a "clean balance sheet." This is an immediate red flag for me, and by making this concession, while I appreciate your honesty, it simply isn't what I want to hear from someone who's asking for significant influence. Essentially, you're acknowledging that you bring forward many good ideas, which may or may not succeed, and that you cannot provide assurances because you lack previous experience in this domain. I'm sure you understand the implications of this? However, I don't place the entire blame on you for this situation. Our executive board should have raised these concerns long before anything became public and either proposed to involve you in a more limited capacity suitable to your offer and experience level or respectfully declined. That responsibility lies with them, not you. They probably owe you an apology. Motherwell Football Club simply cannot be your training ground. Perhaps a club lower down the hierarchy could be more appropriate, but we are a top-tier Premier League club. Our value runs into millions of pounds, and we have a history that dates back over 135 years.

So, to summarise what you're saying, you believe the club can grow by creating clever media content and expanding globally. You see potential in using technology to improve how the club connects with fans and makes more money. You believe in the importance of good communication with fans and the club's board. you think investing money can help stabilise and grow the club, and you want to collaborate closely with Brian and the Well Society Board, valuing their ideas alongside your own. You must forgive me, but that's stating the obvious. We didn't really need you to tell us all of that. I think pretty much every fan of every club in the country could come up with that assessment. What we really need to know is, how are you going to do this? If you showed up on Dragons Den with that pitch, you'd very likely be sent packing. In fact, you might not even make it to the show proper. That pitch could very well be relegated to the BBC Online blooper reel. Where are the actual plans? You mention your reasonable track record? Can you provide specific examples of media tie-ins and clever media creations that have successfully enhanced global visibility for other sports entities or brands you've been involved with? Can you outline a previous experience where your communication strategies positively impacted stakeholder relations in a similar organisational context? Are there instances where your investment in sports organisations or related ventures resulted in sustainable growth without resorting to quick fixes or boom/bust cycles? It would be beneficial for you to provide specific case studies or examples where your proposed strategies (media enhancements, global expansion, tech platform integration, etc.) have been successfully implemented in sports or similar industries. Beyond media and tech initiatives, how do you envision deploying capital to solidify and grow the club? Are there specific areas of investment or projects you want to prioritise? And then we come to fan ownership, which is the major hurdle for your plan as it stands. You don't seem to have a grasp on what fan ownership actually means. It doesn't mean the people who own the shares are fans of the club. Otherwise, literally millions of football clubs would be considered "fan owned", wouldn't they? Are there any shareholders in any football club who would categorise themselves as not fans of the club? Even you, who probably never knew who Motherwell was this time last year, can now be considered "a fan." Under your definition, you owning 49% and the Society holding 46% would constitute the club being "95% fan owned." No, fan ownership isn't that. And that's not just the opinion of the Well Society and people on this forum. You'd get literally the exact same response from any fan group at any football club in Europe. Your definition is plain wrong, and that's okay. No one expects you to get it all correct. You've admitted you're here to learn and grow with us, so that's what we can do. We move on. But, that leaves me with the following questions... How do you reconcile your proposal with the principles of fan ownership, especially considering the adjustments needed to align with the feedback from the Well Society Board? Can you provide assurances or examples where your involvement in community-focused initiatives within sports organizations has demonstrated a commitment to long-term, sustainable growth rather than short-term gains? And perhaps most importantly, you mentioned there will be an update on Monday. Who have you been speaking to for this update to happen? I trust it’s been with the Well Society? As it stands, the club’s executive board includes a Chairman whom many fans lack confidence in and who is on his way out. Additionally, Tom Feely and Douglas Dickie on the board have lost credibility with much of the fan base. In fact, one of them shouldn’t even hold a position on the board, having resigned from the entity that owns that seat, while the other should very likely have tended his resignation by this point. So, could you clarify who you've been updating and negotiating with? Can you confirm it’s been directly with the Well Society board? Look, I understand it may appear that you're being fired at from all angles here, but honestly, this isn't personal. I don't know you. Not many of us do, I'd wager. You are probably a really good guy. But, this is business. And you understand how business works. I'm sure you'd have similar questions if this were your local sports team or an organisation you had an emotional attachment to. The wider fan base and the Well Society simply need to gain a clearer understanding of your strategic vision, your approach to implementing these initiatives, and the potential benefits and challenges associated with your proposals. This will help ensure alignment with the club’s long-term goals and values while maximizing the potential for sustainable growth and community engagement.

What he's proposed sounds interesting to me. Could it work? Possibly. However, I wouldn't stake our future on it. Barmack's proposal could be integrated into a deal where he provides a certain amount of capital each year in exchange for the opportunity to work with us as a testing ground. We could then arrange for him to receive a substantial return if his initiatives prove successful—something more incentive-driven, perhaps? There's a lot of different ways that could be approached. But losing fan ownership over it? Absolutely insane.

Absolutely. I believe this situation has actually been beneficial because it has brought to light serious governance issues within the club that urgently need addressing. In my view, the relationship between the executive and society boards requires a complete overhaul. The Well Society represents the majority ownership of the club, and it's unusual to witness majority owners in any business treated with what appears to be such disregard. All these issues must be resolved before we even consider any investment offer, especially one that would bring such a significant change to the club's ownership structure. In my opinion, the focus should soon shift from EB's proposal to scheduling new board member elections, discussing who will represent the society on the executive board, and addressing the situation regarding the chairman himself. Only once these matters are sorted can we confidently engage with EB to explore what he may have to offer, if anything.

It would need to be under "extraordinary circumstances" for me to even consider agreeing to vote in favour of losing fan ownership. Perhaps if a Motherwell fan won the lottery or was so wealthy that they were happy to bankroll much of our activities. Even then, I would likely question why they wouldn't support the club while still allowing the Well Society to remain in control. Essentially, anyone who genuinely has the club's best interests at heart should have no issue with the Society retaining at least 51% control. I would be very wary of anyone who claims to support fan ownership but doesn't want the Society to maintain majority control. The question then is why? There must be a reason for that.

In my humble opinion, any revised deal needs to be fundamentally altered on his part, not ours. We do not need to make any improvements on our side. Any proposal he offers must surely include the following: Either a significantly larger financial investment or an agreement that the Well Society retains a minimum of 51% shareholding. I'm fairly certain that when some Well Society members voted in the online poll expressing a willingness to consider giving up fan ownership for the right deal, they did not envisage a scenario where an investor's financial outlay would be £1.95 million over six years. Meanwhile, the Well Society membership, through increased contributions and writing off 50% of the loan it gave the club, would have a total financial outlay of £1,784,000 over the same six-year period. For an additional £166,000 from Erik Barmack, we are losing 25% of our shares while he gains 49%. Surely, a deal cannot be made unless the above terms are fundamentally altered? Agreeing to those conditions would make us the laughing stock of Scottish football. We might as well close the tin-pot thread and declare "Motherwell" as the most tin-pot entity ever seen in our game. We would become known as the football club that achieved what many others aspire to—being fan-owned—only to discard it for what amounts to the price of a three-bedroom new-build house in Wishaw.

Awesome. Let me ask a few quick ones then; You talk about "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects." Sounds great. Let's hear some details. What are these "long-term strategic projects" you speak of? What specific infrastructure projects are you interested in implementing within the club? How do your proposed projects align with our current business strategy and the goals of the current majority ownership? What are your expectations for the return on investment on these projects, and over what period? How do you measure the success of infrastructure and long-term strategic projects? And importantly, can you provide examples of similar investments you have made in the past? What were the outcomes of those investments, and what lessons were learned? What risks do you foresee with these projects, and how do you plan to mitigate them? Have you identified any potential challenges in the implementation of these projects? You also speak about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence." Again, sounds great. I have a few questions. Could you elaborate on the specific strategies you envision for boosting broadcasting revenue and the markets or platforms you think we should focus on? Regarding AI, which areas of our business do you believe would benefit most, and what examples of AI solutions do you have in mind? As you'll no doubt know, AI comes in many forms and has many uses. I'd also like to know more about your experience with implementing these technologies. Lastly, could you outline the metrics for success, potential risks, and the proposed timeline for achieving key milestones? Additionally, what types of investors are you targeting, and how do you plan to attract them? I don't expect you to name the additional investors you speak of, but let's hear more about them. You can surely provide some insight? Firstly, what types of investors (e.g., venture capitalists, angel investors, strategic partners) are you targeting, and why do you believe they are a good fit for our club? Do you have a network of potential investors that you plan to approach, and can you share some details that highlight their relevance to our industry? Regarding the evaluation process, what criteria will you use to select potential investors, and are there specific qualities or conditions you are looking for? How do you plan to present our business to attract these investors? What key points and aspects of our business will you highlight in any pitch? Also, what are your expectations regarding the timeline for securing additional investment, and how long do you anticipate the process will take from initial contact to securing funds? What range of investment amounts are you seeking from these investors, and are there specific terms or conditions you intend to propose? Can you provide examples of previous successful fundraising efforts you have been involved in, and what strategies did you use? How do you see your role in the implementation of the fundraising strategy, and will you be actively involved in negotiations and closing deals? How will you manage any risks associated with bringing on new investors, and what steps will you take to ensure that new investments align with our business goals and values? Lastly, what kind of support and value-add do you expect these investors to bring beyond just capital, and are there specific areas where they can contribute to our growth and success? I know that you can't really divulge much of this information on a public forum, and I'm sure that our executive Board has already pressed you on virtually all of the above during their due diligence before even entertaining your proposal as serious and worth their time. So, I'm guessing you've probably answered all of my questions, in detail, and I'm sure that the Society Board and wider membership will receive an abbreviated version of these answers, at the very least, before we vote. After all, it would be rather silly to expect us to vote on accepting a proposal that sees us being asked to invest £1.35 million over six years, which would bizarrely result in a reduction of our shareholding by 25% alongside a requirement to write off 50% of our club loan, amounting to £434,000. I'm sure you recognise that this loan represents funds contributed by fans—many of whom are pensioners and others of limited means—who entrusted their money to the Society in good faith. You're asking the Society board to effectively approve the cancellation of those hard-earned donations and contributions. You mention that you follow politics closely, as do I. I'm sure you're as well aware as I am that a government attempting such a manoeuvre with a substantial amount of public funds would rightly face severe criticism for it. All of this in exchange for you investing £1.95 million over six years, which would grant you a total of 49% ownership, starting with an initial 8% stake for a mere £300,000. I can kind of understand why you're so interested in pushing ahead with this deal.

Aye, but is that level anywhere near as good as playing a handful of games for Bristol City or Stoke?

It's on Fite for £15.

I'm not sure if that works when he's been shit for every single club he's ever played for, though.