StAndrew7

Nah. We budget to finish 10th with no cup runs. That doesn't mean we have the 10th/11th smallest budget, just that we "guarantee" ourselves that level of prize money when planning each season.

Of all the times I've watched this, I have genuinely never noticed Reynolds' hand ball on the line before Reid scores. Still incredible Langfield wasn't retrospectively suspended for trying to end Sutton's career, too.

I think part of the missing 18-21 bracket is also that Kettlewell didn't think any of them were good enough to contribute meaningfully on the park, so punted all of them; he said as much in his comments. I also have to agree that COVID played its part there. It wasn't exactly easy for the club to arrange development loans and I think that's shown in the gap we've got in terms of "experienced" youth players who are in their late teens/early 20s.

I think that tells you all you need to know about his skills as both manager and a head of youth development...

Yes, but that's now not the case though, is it? Both investors as discussed in January either wanted full control, or "close to" 50% of the overall shareholding in the club. If it were the case that we were looking for investment not a takeover (which I absolutely believe was the plan when the video went out initially) they'd both have been told to GTF there and then by the Exec Board. As it happened, it wasn't and was put to the vote. The Well Society membership subsequently voted that it would consider offers which remove its majority shareholder status. As @MurrayWell said earlier, it's opened the door to low-balling the value of the club and the situation we're now in. I have no doubt that the Exec Board think they have/had the best interests of the club in mind when they went out to look for investment. Given how things have gone so far, it's rapidly spiraled to a situation where we could potentially lose control/ownership of the club for a relatively low sum of cash. I agree with your last point; 51/49 is pointless without the casting vote, or at least an overall majority on the newly structured board.

Aye, I'd be inclined to agree with you there. It'll be interesting to see what Killie's accounts say for this season when they're published. Last year's has them running a first team squad budget of £2.4 million for that period, an increase of around £700k on the previous season. We don't split our accounts out like that from what I've quickly scanned, but we paid out just over £5 million (£200k lower than the previous year) in total staff costs for the same period and Killie paid out £4.1 million. We were paying 222 staff, Killie 178; so average salary is £22.5k and £23k. So aye, Killie are a good benchmark. As for St Mirren, there's rumours/information that they've not started paying back their COVID loans or some such and might be in a bit more debt as a result of what's going on but I guess their highest ever finish this season will help with leveling that out. On your last point, it definitely feels like that to some extent; I think either (or both) @Handsome_Devil and @capt_oats and I were discussing this a few pages back. The relative stability that the Burrows/Russell era provided seems cosy in comparison to where we are just now but hopefully that's going to change with or without investment, with Brian Caldwell in place and potentially others to follow, alongside a rejuvenated Well Society starting to publish its business plans/aims for its future role in the club.

This. It's also been said that any investment we're looking at won't be: Anywhere near that amount or "transformational" In the form of loans or securities against the club and its assets; it'll be in newly issued shares I don't think we can compare any potential investment (given our current understanding of what's being discussed) with Dundee United, Hearts, Killie or Queens Park. They're very different models with very different goals and strategies. From what I can remember, Hearts have something like 25,000 members in the Hearts Foundation and have also spent ~£25 million on their squad over the last 3/4 seasons.

I'd agree with you; that's not directly what they said when pressed on it at based on my recollection (I've gone back and re-read my notes from SO to clarify). The whole narrative around the financial concerns re: the club was around that magic £750k "funding gap" figure; i.e. if we were to exit all cup competitions at the first stage, finish 10th, not sell any players or receive any development fees for young players. It's very much built around a perfect storm in a teacup. A couple of seasons of that lack of success would put us into a bit of trouble. There was a narrative throughout the meeting around our inability to compete financially for players with teams in the National League during the January window (although given that's the "expensive" window, I'd perhaps take that with a pinch of salt). The KVV to Killie loan was also mentioned, regarding the wages etc. that they were willing to pay for him that blew us out of the water; St Mirren were also discussed here as having offered more wages for him. Outside investment was not the only situation they said would work; increased funding from the WS was also discussed and was stated at the time as being both of their preferences ("as members of the WS" and "in an ideal world the WS will be a success" or words to that effect). I think the one thing that needs to be acknowledged here is that there will inevitably be a point where the WS will peak in terms of its ability to raise funds and support the club but I don't think it's gotten close to that yet. When it does, I would say that's when outside investment needs to be sought, if it's required. Although if an investor comes in to work alongside the WS, keeping it 51/49, 60/40 or whatever and making back their investment through other channels, whilst also supporting the WS to grow its base (potentially outside of the core fans, selling the club globally or whatever, if it's EB), then that would be absolutely ideal. I think the other thing to point out is that if I were in EB's shoes, my starting bid for any investment in the club would be relatively low; it's the nature of these kind of negotiations. I fully agree that £1.5m for half the club is absolute bollocks; hopefully the Executive Board do as well and have subsequently kicked it into touch. Three weeks into exclusivity, I'd expect there to have been at least one revised offer tabled with hopefully either a reduced overall shareholding or an increase in the investment.

Aye, that can get in the sea.

What is the "rumoured" bid? I've legit forgotten what is/was being banded about.

Yeah, agreed. It certainly felt like that and there was at least a form of security there with a steady ship for the most part, which hopefully will be built up again with Caldwell in place and a rejuvenated WS Board taking the reigns, too. It does feel like we have regressed into a bit of a malaise over the last few (four? five?) years. There's change(s) on the way; potential investment, a new Executive Board structure and the WS looking to take more leadership in the running of the club, I'm definitely beginning to feel more positive about things (not that I wasn't before, but I just felt, like you've said, we were just scrambling about to try and not get relegated). I'm intrigued to see how long the exclusivity period will last, and if it ultimately leads to something; although I'd probably be more surprised if it doesn't lead to something. An example of 6 weeks was given at the AGM but the club statement doesn't provide a time frame, understandably, I guess. That's more to see what the timescales for any investment are and if there could be any impact on what sort of planning we can be doing for next season in terms of transfers, contract offers and the like. One of the investors was keen to be involved in transfer planning for next season, although given the two proposals/models that were discussed I'd have guessed that was the Australian/Middle Eatern/Asian group, who have since pulled out (which I assume was due to us appointing Caldwell, as they wanted to appoint their own CEO as part of their proposal). Given EB's perceived lack of footballing knowledge, I imagine he won't want to be directly involved in it, other than to sign off on some of his cash being used to sign X/Y/Z or be spent on A/B/C.

It staggers me that so many people can't grasp how profit and loss accounting works, particularly when they're using it to try and justify a position. Screaming about a huge income from DT but then choosing to ignore the rest of it "because reasons" and that it justifies their position that fan ownership doesn't work is bonkers to me. We're a financially healthy, well run club™ who are now an attractive investment because of the model we have operated under and are continuing to. That includes player sales and the current fan ownership model. I think you've partially answered your own question there; any model to provide a payback period on an external investment would need to include both player sales and actively pursuing and exploiting the "other stuff" which is why I'm intrigued by what Erik Barmack could propose in any potential investment plan. The club is deservedly praised in terms of its accounts, strategic investments etc. but I think we'd all acknowledge that there are revenue streams and other areas where it can absolutely do better in attracting more income (see Grant Russell's Twitter rant etc.). Now, that's not a slight on the current staff or their abilities to do their jobs, it's more of an indication of just how thinly stretched the back office team appear to be. Hopefully Brian Caldwell can support them and the Well Society in exploiting some of those, with or without the help of EB/new investors. It's definitely an intriguing and exciting (for me, anyway) time to be a 'Well fan; I'd just quite like to get safety guaranteed so we can relax a bit and see what's going to come over the next few months.

I mean, I wasn't a member here before December but I absolutely didn't. His work ethic and willingness to give 100% was clear from the get go, despite the overall quality being missing. Could absolutely see there was potential there which would take some time. He always struck me as someone who was more willing to play than the likes of Wilkinson and Shaw earlier in the season.

Why d'you think that? I would argue he's absolutely demonstrated why you should believe the opposite based on how he's developed, improved and clearly working hard on becoming a better striker.