StAndrew7

Indeed, as will private shareholders. The devil, as always, will be in the detail of what proposal/package is put forward in a few weeks (if it gets to that stage, there is the possibility talks will fail, but given the Board's messaging etc. I highly doubt that). Right now the rest is speculation based on what we've seen/read/heard from a variety of sources (informed or otherwise ).

Aye, all that's missing from that quote is changing "would" to "could" and you have an entirely different statement there.

I can't, no, I'm not sure many of us could. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one, it just means we're not well versed in running a football club under those terms. edit: although I assume by "taking the reigns" you mean majority control. That can get in the fucking sea.

I guess the problem we have in this case, is that the WS vote said we'd consider options giving up fan ownership. The Club can't come out and squash anything relating that, even if it were in the position to do so (which I acknowledge isn't easy) because it's now, fundamentally, a part of the negotiating position as dictated by the WS members.

Perhaps I was a bit strong in my views there, but if I were to breach one in my line of work I'd be out on my arse very quickly. (Also a non-NDA would be a disclosure agreement, lol ) As for choosing to breach one or not to set a different narrative, that narrative can be set in exactly the way that Barmack has set his own; through appropriate channels, with an interview, quotes, etc. providing a similar level of information to Barmack's and putting that to bed.

Aye, that's fair. I mean, if he has "sources" that are leaking it to him, I agree, it's his job to report on those things. My issue is there's nothing to back it up in the article; it's just repeating a lot of stuff we already know with a fairly racy opening paragraph. I'm not expecting an exclusive tell all EXPLOSIVE interview with someone including direct quotes and what have you but I'd at least expect a reference to where the information has come from, even if it's just an "inside sources" or whatever. My concern is more how poorly that reflects on anyone who has (potentially) leaked the information out to GM. I've worked under a lot of confidentiality, non-disclosure and exclusivity agreements in my career and they're sacrosanct for me. They're in place for a reason and are to be respected and not breached. If it's the case that details have been leaked, someone in the club, or involved in the process needs sacked, and/or worse. Like I said in my original post, if it has happened, it stinks of "In the know".

I absolutely agree, but that article mentions majority stakeholder status in the opening paragraph then does nothing to back it up. No quotes, no references, nothing. Although if it is the case and they're after it for peanuts, it can get in the fucking sea. If he does indeed have it from sources (i.e. his dad as an ex WS Chairman or someone else within the club) then someone, somewhere, has potentially breached a confidentiality agreement about an ongoing commercial/financial negotiation. If that's the case, then it's very, very poor from all involved. Stinks of someone pushing their own agenda because they're "In the know" which is exactly what's fucking wrong with the club and its hierarchy at times.

Went to "An evening with the Fast Show" last month in Glasgow. Top notch.

Aye, it very much reads like he's "saying the right things" as you would expect in an early stage type interview but... he is saying the right things. Definitely going to be interesting how this develops over the next month or so. Also, Elizabeth Banks has been an all timer for me ever since her appearances in Scrubs

This is it in a nutshell for me. People are too quick to take a stance on something (fan ownership, investment, whatever) because of a self-informed/conceived issue with (e.g.) fan ownership because it hasn't worked out how they envisioned it working out. That doesn't mean it's failed, or it's succeeded; I would argue most people would err on the side of it succeeding but with the outside influence of other teams around us having benefactors, investment etc. I can see why they would be driven down a path to thinking that it's failed. I pointed out a few pages ago that the actual reason we are an attractive option for investors is our healthy accounts... accounts which have all been generated during our period of fan ownership. However, I would caveat that with if there is a serious investor who thinks they'll be able to get money out of Motherwell (or any Scottish club for that matter), they're bonkers. For the record I'm neither for or against investment right now; I need to see proposals, business plans, figures etc. that will justify whatever option is being put to the club/shareholders. If I were in the Well Society I would absolutely have voted to not consider any proposal which cedes the fan ownership model below 51%. The nuances of how that 51% is made up between the Society, private shareholders etc. will also need clarified, but that's my one line in the sand.

I think he's a bit of a victim of Kettlewell's system; he's never struck me as a central striker, more as a winger, so there's definitely that going against him. Also, he's only 17, plenty of time for him to be introduced into the first team. Not everyone in the youth team is Lennon Miller's quality at the same age. Kettlewell has said that he fully expects academy players to play a bigger role next season, with budgets being squeezed more and the need to develop them quicker and provide more of a route to the starting 11, especially given the potential for bigger clubs down south to poach younger players (see Wells as the example). You would expect that Ross and Wells will be part of those plans, along with a few others.

Aye, I saw stats that from October to January there had been something insane like over 3 metres of rain falling in the Motherwell/Wishaw area. Even this weekend alone by the time it's done there will have been the same amount of rain this April than there was for the entire month of April last year. That and the Livi game where it pissed it down the entire time haven't helped it.

I like him.

As one of those shareholders, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's important to me that the Society still has controlling stake over and above those private shareholders, unless there is an agreement drawn up to vote as a larger block of fan ownership, if that's even legal/permissible.

When the two bids were mentioned, one wanted to reduce fan ownership below 50% and one wanted to reduce it to "around 50%" iirc. The fact "around" was used would make me wonder if it'd still be the majority (however that's made up; reducing the Society and private shareholding totals to a total of just over 50% or whatever). However, it wasn't indicated which proposals were attributable to which potential investor.

Get the yellow baw out and it'll be fine.

It's what was said at the AGM, from what I remember; WS members would receive the same information as the other shareholders. How that's shared may vary, based on if it's submitted to the WS Board and then disseminated to the membership or otherwise. Personally, if I were a member, I'd be demanding to see all of the relevant documentation, either sent directly or at a meeting/webinar type event. I'm afraid that's going to happen, no matter who's in charge/the majority owner of the club. Fir Park is falling apart and we're going to continue to sink thousands into it to keep it going, when we should be selling the land and moving elsewhere. That, for me, is actually the biggest opportunity any new investor has to sell their vision for the club. Build a new stadium around the community that we're a part of and all of its needs. Rent out medical facilities to the NHS during the week, have charities and local organisations set up in the offices, local MP/MSPs running their clinics there, all of that. That's the bit that actually excites me about the future of the club, rather than giving me the fear, personally; but only if it's done properly and ensures we're not in any significant debt or are tied into some sort of horrendous agreement on funding etc.

This gives me the absolute fear.

We're absolutely not; if anything, the healthy accounts the club has been demonstrating (essentially since fan ownership was realised) have made the club more attractive to investors than, some would argue, it ever has been.

As far as I understand it, if you're a Well Society member, you're a shareholder. Perhaps some members or @JayMFC can confirm that, or give their perspective on their understanding of it? It's a fair point re: everyone receiving it; I wouldn't expect Junior Steel members to receive the information, obviously. I would absolutely expect full Society members to at least have the option to review all of the relevant documentation before they vote. How on earth can its membership be expected to vote without full knowledge of any potential loss in their majority ownership stake in the club, or a significant dilution of their shareholding by 25% or so? It can be done in several ways, I guess; meetings/presentations/webinars, where documents are presented and shared, emailed out with a link to a secure website which doesn't allow downloads, screenshots etc. or everyone gets sent an "investment pack" which details everything. Now, I'm not a Society member; I'm a private shareholder and perhaps my expectations are a bit different based on that, but why should I receive more information than someone who has likely contributed more money to the club than I have based on monthly contributions?

I very much doubt that will happen. Each WS member (as shareholders in the club) should receive the same information as any other private shareholder; which will be a significant amount of information. From what I understand, the Society membership votes and the Board has to then enact the Society's wishes by voting with its block of shares. The Board cannot make a unilateral decision without asking its membership to inform them how they should proceed; which, in my mind, should be based on all the information made available relating to any potential investment. There's strict corporate law that governs this; I'm absolutely not an expert in it, but my understanding is that every shareholder (so essentially every member of the WS, who are part of their 72ish% stake) and the other 28% receive the same information to review and vote on. Now, how the Society Board wishes to provide that information to its members is their choice, however if I were a member I would want to receive absolutely everything that is passed on from the investor and Executive Board to review and I've seen nothing mentioned from any of the Board members that would contradict that being the case..

Aye but folk pay their £10 a month and MUST! BE! INFORMED! Because normal business process, due diligence and financial law doesn't apply to us.

I think cloak and dagger might have been the wrong phrase to use here; @capt_oatsexplained my feelings far better re: the optics of it all.

My understanding is that if there is any offer which is deemed palatable by the executive board it would be put to all shareholders at the same time; there's no pecking order in terms of majority or otherwise.

Aye, unless we see a business plan with guaranteed investment that values the club far, far, higher than what's been quoted so far (for a 50/50 split anyway), it can all get in the fucking sea. If it were for lower than 50% and equated to a decent valuation of the club, although what that is I don't really know, I'd at least be forced into thinking about it. Considering we'd anticipate Lennon Miller being worth what, £2-4 million(?), it'd need to be double the top end of that for me to consider it worth our time for a 50/50 split. This all seems very cloak and dagger.