Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Handsome_Devil]

2 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

Some folk seem to think this is simply the real life equivalent of using the editor to give yourself a higher transfer budget on Football Manager, rather than the genuine future, and potentially even long-term existence, of the football club.

The number of people who seem to think an investor in Motherwell will want to put money into the club overall rather than take it out is frightening.

Of course there's an everyone's a winner sweet spot but basically you've nailed it - it needs to be made clear this isn't simply adding a few hundred k a year so we don't lose Spittal to St Mirren or whatever.

[thisGRAEME]

19 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

The number of people who seem to think an investor in Motherwell will want to put money into the club overall rather than take it out is frightening.

This is not restricted to Motherwell fans, fwiw, but it remains an absolutely mad view point.

The number of United fans, for example, that want 'Ogren Out'. I mean, lads, you owe him £10,000,000 odd, don't you? That's money he'll want... back? You can't just chuck him and move on to the next one like you do with your managers.

People who have money very rarely want to just give it away. Hutchinson by all accounts had loads of money and he gave us some, but wanted the rest back.

 

[StAndrew7]

49 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

I know Twitter is hardly representative of pretty much anything but some of the rhetoric out there does give me the absolute fear, which is a bit of a comedown from coming out of a Well Society meeting on Monday evening feeling the most positive I've felt about fan-ownership since before the pandemic.

Some folk seem to think this is simply the real life equivalent of using the editor to give yourself a higher transfer budget on Football Manager, rather than the genuine future, and potentially even long-term existence, of the football club.

Absolutely this.

There's an awful lot to be considered, but I've seen quite a few knee-jerk reactions to any investment before we really know much more than what I/we heard on Wednesday night. I appreciate you've probably got a bit more knowledge based on the WS board having had discussions with the two parties involved (and that those are probably to be kept confidential) so maybe have a bit more knowledge/a take on the individuals.

The line in the sand (for now, at least) is the 50% or 51/49 ownership, or the finer details of the WS having any buyback option should an investor want to bail/sell their shares in the case of a 50% proposal.

One concern I do have around the Society (for now) is the poor turnout in the board elections last year; about 18-20%, I think? I know there are plans to increase engagement etc. but if there's a requirement for a vote on the above in the coming weeks, is there a way you think that turnout can be boosted? Given the seriousness and obvious amount of discussion and engagement that's happening I'm expecting it not to be an issue but it's still something that's nagging at the back of my mind.

My concern there is if there is a communication with voting requirements sent out and the response rate is similar, or doesn't come close to a majority, what kind of message that sends to the investors about how seriously the WS should be taken in all of this? I've stated on SO/maybe here that I'm not a member (although I'm considering it, given both yours and Dee's engagement messages etc. in the last couple of days) but the upcoming vote will be a fair test of what you've laid out so far; how d'you feel about it all?

Also, for the record, I absolutely do not want to go below 50% fan ownership; I'd prefer a 51/49 split a la Germany, but if 50% with a buyback/first refusal option for the WS (and other private shareholders like myself to increase their shareholding) I would seriously consider it.

18 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

This is not restricted to Motherwell fans, fwiw, but it remains an absolutely mad view point.

The number of United fans, for example, that want 'Ogren Out'. I mean, lads, you owe him £10,000,000 odd, don't you? That's money he'll want... back? You can't just chuck him and move on to the next one like you do with your managers.

People who have money very rarely want to just give it away. Hutchinson by all accounts had loads of money and he gave us some, but wanted the rest back.

 

I guess this is where people need to know more, too. The board assured the meeting on Wednesday that the investment would be made in shares (in whatever form/type) rather than in loans like Hutchinson, which as you rightly said needed to be (and have been) paid back.

However, that doesn't provide assurances that money won't be take out of the club by any owner; as they said, the two current bids furthest forward both state they'd want to make a return on any investment/buy in. How that happens will be in the detail of any final agreements (e.g. special shares/dividends related to club profits etc.)

The whole "philanthropic" investor just won't happen, as far as I'm concerned; so if we want investment, we need to accept that will come with a requirements for return on whatever form that takes. As always, the devil is in the details; I'd love to see how the build up of shares purchase by any investor will go; from what I understand it won't be an immediate buy-in for all of the shares to split the ownership. If the WS can be given time to demonstrate that it can match, or provide additional funding to any investor that could be a really intriguing proposition.

Edited February 23 by StAndrew7

[thisGRAEME]

6 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Also, for the record, I absolutely do not want to go below 50% fan ownership; I'd prefer a 51/49 split a la Germany, but if 50% with a buyback/first refusal option for the WS (and other private shareholders like myself to increase their shareholding) I would seriously consider it.

Absolutely not a go at you at all here, but I've seen this suggested a bunch by people insisting we go for a 50+1 idea akin to Germany like you say, while also citing that Society membership doesn't work etc., and it's absolutely mad to me.

If you're an investor looking in, why would you bother? Give up your cash and your time but have no actual final say in what's going on? A curious pair of thoughts to hold in your head that both of these things are absolutely achievable.

6 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I guess this is where people need to know more, too. The board assured the meeting on Wednesday that the investment would be made in shares (in whatever form/type) rather than in loans like Hutchinson, which as you rightly said needed to be (and have been) paid back.

However, that doesn't provide assurances that money won't be take out of the club by any owner; as they said, the two current bids furthest forward both state they'd want to make a return on any investment/buy in. How that happens will be in the detail of any final agreements (e.g. special shares/dividends related to club profits etc.)

The whole "philanthropic" investor just won't happen, as far as I'm concerned; so if we want investment, we need to accept that will come with a requirements for return on whatever form that takes. As always, the devil is in the details; I'd love to see how the build up of shares purchase by any investor will go; from what I understand it won't be an immediate buy-in for all of the shares to split the ownership. If the WS can be given time to demonstrate that it can match, or provide additional funding to any investor that could be a really intriguing proposition.

This is an absolutely sensible view, IMO, and also where a lot of knowledge appears to be missing. As above, folk won't just throw their money into a pit. If they wanted to they'd KLF it because that's the most dramatic way to. There has to be some kind of return, because "Well, we're a nice wee club aren't we?" is not a selling point either, as much as folk would like it to be. 

It's a business and requires a plan with aims and deliverable means to get there, which I feel like a broken record, we don't appear to have had.

[Busta Nut]

"Fan ownership isn't working"

"Can you give me an example of what's not working so far?"

"..... eh, well what's working about it??"





This is what I've seen about 7 times on twitter. Word for word too.

[Dosser1886]

34 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Hutchinson by all accounts had loads of money and he gave us some, but wanted the rest back.

 

If he gave me a quid every time he said "hand up not hand oot" I'd have ended up with more than him.

[Dosser1886]

9 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

This is what I've seen about 7 times on twitter. Word for word too.

Binned Twitter/X years ago not good for the head reading mainly the utterly moronic, troll led chat. Don't miss it at all 

[wellboy1991]

I think everyone at the moment need to get their emotions in check. From both sides of the spectrum on the WS may I add. 

We are going through a pretty shit time at the moment on and off the pitch so it’s understandable people are looking going this isn’t working… we are fucked etc etc.

Whats not not working.. f**k knows …but the Well Society and board are the first to be shot at along with manager etc when the fiscal aspects look grim. 

When you factor in the current world financial climate I am sure it is becoming harder for people to justify putting more money into a club to keep it running to their family (wives). I know I keep deflecting questions on that front.

So reservations might be coming from that and wanting to pap the responsibility onto others. 

I have my own issues with the WS, lack of comms, input and actual feel at times sold a bit of a banger with a few aspects initially. Selfishly about ‘rewards’ ‘tiers’ what ever you want to call it. 7 years of outing money in a month and genuinely had little if any feedback. But that can be worked on. 

I don’t think the petty bickering, name calling, snideness will help and will I think drive some folk away from investing or being bothered. 

[capt_oats]

Something that crossed my mind kind of relates to @Busta Nut's point about the hierarchy at the club.

It's maybe one for @JayMFC or Dee so if you'll indulge me, I get it's also maybe not something that you'd want shared on a public forum given we've already seen The Sun run an "exclusive" that has basically just aggregated some of the detail from posts on here, Steelmen and FPC:

Anyway, I understand that Dickie and Feely are both on the board of the club and also the WS. Are they part of the discussions/negotiations re: investment on behalf of the WS and it's then fed back to the broader board or is it just being led by McMahon with details being shared on a need to know basis (I thought it interesting that Weir kind of put himself at arms length on Wednesday - he cut the figure of a man scunnered that he was still interim CEO because the board hadn't sorted their shit out but that's a different conversation)?

Either way, the way it was presented was that the WS were being "kept in the loop" for lack of a better phrase which to speak to Busta's point a few pages back seems a bit backward.

I realise I'm someone whose posts on here have shown that the more I've heard from McMahon over the past while the less convinced I am but the reason I'm curious is that having McMahon leading this kind of throws up a potential scenario where it's unclear whether the WS (as current majority owners) and any potential investor are on the same page or capable of working together before it goes to a vote.

Dunno, that doesn't seem to be a particularly healthy starting point should something get voted through the section of the fanbase/membership being discussed above.

Edited February 23 by capt_oats

[Handsome_Devil]

1 hour ago, thisGRAEME said:

This is not restricted to Motherwell fans, fwiw, but it remains an absolutely mad view point.

The number of United fans, for example, that want 'Ogren Out'. I mean, lads, you owe him £10,000,000 odd, don't you? That's money he'll want... back? You can't just chuck him and move on to the next one like you do with your managers.

People who have money very rarely want to just give it away. Hutchinson by all accounts had loads of money and he gave us some, but wanted the rest back.

 

Maybe they're all secret social revolutionaries...to me buying the shares to control the club is fine, if you then invest in the business you own, with the intention of taking profits, you also take the risk of loss. Four years later going, sorry boys, I only lent my business that money and I'd like it back is why we hate football capitalists. And yes, I did consider whether one word in the last sentence was particularly needed.

Edited February 23 by Handsome_Devil

[Busta Nut]

1 minute ago, capt_oats said:

Something that crossed my mind kind of relates to @Busta Nut's point about the hierarchy at the club.

It's maybe one for @JayMFC or Dee so if you'll indulge me, I get it's also maybe not something that you'd want shared on a public forum given we've already seen The Sun run an "exclusive" report that has basically just aggregated some of the detail from posts on here, Steelmen and FPC:

Anyway, I understand that Dickie and Feely are both on the board of the club and also the WS. Are they part of the discussions/negotiations re: investment on behalf of the WS and it's then fed back to the broader board or is it just being led by McMahon with details being shared on a need to know basis (I thought it interesting that Weir kind of put himself at arms length on Wednesday - he cut the figure of a man scunnered that he was still interim CEO because the board hadn't sorted their shit out but that's a different conversation)?

Either way, the way it was presented was that the WS were being "kept in the loop" for lack of a better phrase which to speak to Busta's point a few pages back seems a bit backward.

I realise I'm someone whose posts on here have shown that the more I've heard from McMahon over the past while the less convinced I am but the reason I'm curious is that having McMahon leading this kind of throws a scenario where it's unclear whether the WS (as current majority owners) and any potential investor are on the same page or capable of working together before it goes to a vote.

Dunno, that doesn't seem to be a particularly healthy starting point should something get voted through the section of the fanbase/membership being discussed above.

I was basically wondering why McMahon and Weir think they can essentially sell the WS shares. (I know it has to go to a vote etc, but seems weird that it's jumped to this without consultation. )

[StAndrew7]

2 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

I was basically wondering why McMahon and Weir think they can essentially sell the WS shares. (I know it has to go to a vote etc, but seems weird that it's jumped to this without consultation. )

I mean, I would argue they absolutely know they can't (hence the engagement with the WS early doors before anything is agreed re: next steps for due diligence) but if an investor comes in and says that is part of their initial terms for investing they have to take that as read and proceed with it if they're doing their job as board members appropriately?

Edited February 23 by StAndrew7

[eliphas]

1 minute ago, Busta Nut said:

I was basically wondering why McMahon and Weir think they can essentially sell the WS shares. (I know it has to go to a vote etc, but seems weird that it's jumped to this without consultation. )

I'm not sure they are, are they? 

We asked for investment, we've got a handful of people interested. We've had some chat. Now we've got two 'serious' bids and both have indicated they'd be looking to adjust share set up. Unless you red line it from the off and say, no thanks boys, we just want your money, then you need to see what they want and then present that to the WS for discussion and ultimately a vote. That's what I took from the summaries the last couple of days. 

Also, I'd be pretty annoyed if they had done the opposite and assumed they can't sell the WS shares. As a member I'm happy for that to be explored.

[MurrayWell]

14 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

Absolutely not a go at you at all here, but I've seen this suggested a bunch by people insisting we go for a 50+1 idea akin to Germany like you say, while also citing that Society membership doesn't work etc., and it's absolutely mad to me.

If you're an investor looking in, why would you bother? 

I think this is it in a nutshell regarding the 50+1 model here. I said earlier in this thread it's obviously the dream scenario but realistically is it ever going to be an option for an SPFL club? I reckon the reason it works in Germany (aside from the obvious crowds, TV deal and all round class product) is more down to the fact that all clubs are run that way so investors can't really just pick another option and take full control there. If you want to invest in football there those are the rules. 

I've been a member of the Well Society for a number of years and I really back the concept and idea behind it. The figures show it is working for us, but I do feel there has been a bit of stagnation, I found the recent election turnout figures a bit concerning. Personally though, the recent noises from the Well Society have me feeling the most optimistic about it I have in a while. Sounds like a number of ideas are being considered around how the WS can grow the club without us losing our identity, will be interested to see how this develops. If we have a nice investor who just fancies chucking money in for a bit of fun then ideal, I'd be amazed if anyone does that though. 

[eliphas]

1 minute ago, MurrayWell said:

I think this is it in a nutshell regarding the 50+1 model here. I said earlier in this thread it's obviously the dream scenario but realistically is it ever going to be an option for an SPFL club? I reckon the reason it works in Germany (aside from the obvious crowds, TV deal and all round class product) is more down to the fact that all clubs are run that way so investors can't really just pick another option and take full control there. If you want to invest in football there those are the rules. 

I've been a member of the Well Society for a number of years and I really back the concept and idea behind it. The figures show it is working for us, but I do feel there has been a bit of stagnation, I found the recent election turnout figures a bit concerning. Personally though, the recent noises from the Well Society have me feeling the most optimistic about it I have in a while. Sounds like a number of ideas are being considered around how the WS can grow the club without us losing our identity, will be interested to see how this develops. If we have a nice investor who just fancies chucking money in for a bit of fun then ideal, I'd be amazed if anyone does that though. 

I'm a jaded/lapsed WS member as I mentioned yesterday and to be honest I think there's as much chance of us growing the club via WS as there is an investor popping up and giving us some cash. I can see us keeping the club afloat and finding our level down the ladder but growing it I'm unconvinced. Very happy to be convinced though and agree recent soundings from @JayMFCand others do raise my optimism levels a bit from where they have been.

[JayMFC]

55 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

There's an awful lot to be considered, but I've seen quite a few knee-jerk reactions to any investment before we really know much more than what I/we heard on Wednesday night. I appreciate you've probably got a bit more knowledge based on the WS board having had discussions with the two parties involved (and that those are probably to be kept confidential) so maybe have a bit more knowledge/a take on the individuals.

Yeah, obviously none of us on the Society Board would be putting out details at this stage, although - as outlined at the AGM - we have had discussions with both, saw sight of the extent of proposals, and had a chance to do our own due diligence in terms of who they are, what they're intentions are, how in line they are with the club's values etc. Obviously all of that would then be provided to members, were we to get to a point of seeking agreement from the Society membership in relation to a particular investment offer.

Also, in terms of that due diligence, I personally think it's important that the Society Board is putting any investment offer out to members, as long as it's credible, makes sense, is actually a reasonably "good deal", and doesn't have any particular red flags. I assume that's what people have understood the Society's role to be at the moment, rather than just offering out any option that comes along to members, but thought it might be worth clarifying.

55 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

One concern I do have around the Society (for now) is the poor turnout in the board elections last year; about 18-20%, I think? I know there are plans to increase engagement etc. but if there's a requirement for a vote on the above in the coming weeks, is there a way you think that turnout can be boosted? Given the seriousness and obvious amount of discussion and engagement that's happening I'm expecting it not to be an issue but it's still something that's nagging at the back of my mind.

It's a fair point. One thing I would say is that I think that's really just a reflection of how a lot, if not most, Well Society members seem to be quite content with things just rumbling on, and haven't taken a great deal of interest in the elections. Our survey data genuinely does show that the majority of Society members think things are totally fine - that's not to say there aren't drastic improvements necessarily, I'm the first to say that - but I think the turnout for elections just reflects that it's not really priority.

At the same time, we've had differing turnout figures - which I don't have to hand unfortunately - for things like the VAR consultation, the share sale ballot etc. And my understanding is, although it was before my time, the ballot to prevent Rangers from getting back into the top flight had a high turnout. So I think it's really just dependent on the topic, and I would expect there to be far, far more interest in a vote on any potential investment opportunities. 

In short, I think the Society is just like the real world - give folk a local government election, and loads of folk won't even know it's happening; given them a referendum, and there'll be a big turnout.

55 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I've stated on SO/maybe here that I'm not a member (although I'm considering it, given both yours and Dee's engagement messages etc. in the last couple of days) but the upcoming vote will be a fair test of what you've laid out so far; how d'you feel about it all?

So my own personal views at the moment - and these are not the views of X, Y, Z, etc etc - are that I personally would argue against the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding in the club. There is a sense of urgency that's been attached to all of this that I don't think is particularly helpful - the club is simply in the same position it's been for years, where, if we have a poor season and no cup run and no player sales, a gap needs plugged. It is, of course, very important to sort that out, which is why I totally agree that a balance between fan-ownership & outside investment would be ideal, but I get the impression that a lot of folk think this has suddenly come to the fore at the AGM. The only reason it's being discussed so vocally now is because there are a couple of offers on the table because of the video, not because the club is in peril.

I believe that I've been voted onto the board by (admittedly 18-20% of!) members to progress & grow fan-ownership, and to stick to that original rallying call of preventing the club from falling into the wrong hands. I believe that fan-ownership throws up concerns about sustaining what level of football you can maintain in the long-term without serious growth of the current model or outside investment, but guarantees the club will exist forever. And my own personal opinion is that there's actually a lot of merit in going ahead and appointing a CEO, transforming the Well Society's communications & governance via the workstreams being rolled out, producing a strategy that outlines the Society's plans for the future, and continuing to seek investment that works for all involved while protecting the long-term future of the football club.

I don't think we can do the above, at least in relation to the CEO, while negotiations carry on for weeks, maybe even months, involving the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding (something I believe, again, was clarified at the AGM - the reason for no CEO isn't that a recruitment process hasn't been carried out or because there are no suitable candidates, it's just not going to happen while these negotiations are ongoing). For others, delaying that appointment to conclude those negotiations might very well be worth it, but not for me.

And just on the consultation itself, which I know was also outlined at the AGM, that should be going out soon - there's just some work being undertaken around the content of it & timescales involved.

Edited February 23 by JayMFC

[Handsome_Devil]

1 hour ago, thisGRAEME said:

Absolutely not a go at you at all here, but I've seen this suggested a bunch by people insisting we go for a 50+1 idea akin to Germany like you say, while also citing that Society membership doesn't work etc., and it's absolutely mad to me.

I don't think that's quite as clear cut as you suggest for every possible investor although yeah, it clearly will apply to some as it would for any normal business.

If we take the US idea for example, the implication is he would have little to do on the sporting side but expand the business half through, well, god knows. But ok. What's in it for him, is that he gets access to what he thinks will make money by spending £2m on 20% rather than £5m on 50%. And we'll be thrilled to leave that side of it alone, we clearly do not have the means or expertise to do otherwise.

Absolutely no one other than him is interested in taking money out, so he leaves us to run the football and could take a majority of dividends from the profits his new wheez generates through a different class of shares with the rest going back into the club. Or there could be a slightly different company or any of god knows how many financial tricks that can be pulled.

In reverse, if we go for the other option... we could sell FP to the Well Society with agreement to rent it back for a token sum. The business is worth much less without it's key asset, sure, but that means the buy in price is much less and they sink or swim on their operating profit from their hair-brained transfer idea.

The exact details of who gets how much of what and when can be wrangled over and agreed in advance, that's why lawyers are rich...the above is all just examples, there will be other creative possibilities no doubt...but essentially saying we'll only consider something that's a partnership where the investor gets the reward but doesn't get to do so basically risk-free is exactly the sort of high bar to acceptance we should be setting.

Edited February 23 by Handsome_Devil

[Handsome_Devil]

7 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

there's actually a lot of merit in going ahead and appointing a CEO, transforming the Well Society's communications & governance via the workstreams being rolled out, producing a strategy that outlines the Society's plans for the future, and continuing to seek investment that works for all involved while protecting the long-term future of the football club.

I don't think we can do the above, at least in relation to the CEO, while negotiations carry on for weeks, maybe even months, involving the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding (something I believe, again, was clarified at the AGM - the reason for no CEO isn't that a recruitment process hasn't been carried out or because there are no suitable candidates, it's just not going to happen while these negotiations are ongoing). For others, delaying that appointment to conclude those negotiations might very well be worth it, but not for me.

100% this for me and the point about rushing is also very good...there will always be a tough season, a crucial transfer window coming up which implies urgency when we should be staying calm. Drifting along for even more months on the basis we might sell a stake to someone will cause us much more harm than that someone walking away.

[StAndrew7]

25 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

Also, in terms of that due diligence, I personally think it's important that the Society Board is putting any investment offer out to members, as long as it's credible, makes sense, is actually a reasonably "good deal", and doesn't have any particular red flags. I assume that's what people have understood the Society's role to be at the moment, rather than just offering out any option that comes along to members, but thought it might be worth clarifying.

Which is exactly what I'd expect from the Board (both Boards, actually); I think it's also worth saying/noting here that as any negotiations continue and parties proceed to due diligence, the final offer of investment, heads of terms etc etc. will be subject to change from anything that's initially on the table.

25 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

So my own personal views at the moment - and these are not the views of X, Y, Z, etc etc - are that I personally would argue against the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding in the club. There is a sense of urgency that's been attached to all of this that I don't think is particularly helpful - the club is simply in the same position it's been for years, where, if we have a poor season and no cup run and no player sales, a gap needs plugged. It is, of course, very important to sort that out, which is why I totally agree that a balance between fan-ownership & outside investment would be ideal, but I get the impression that a lot of folk think this has suddenly come to the fore at the AGM. The only reason it's being discussed so vocally now is because there are a couple of offers on the table because of the video, not because the club is in peril.

Yeah, I absolutely get that; I think there's a lot of attention (rightly, to an extent) on everything because of the AGM and the potential investment. It's no different to the guy who came along a number of years ago wanting to invest but would recoup money in transfer fees etc. An

25 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

I don't think we can do the above, at least in relation to the CEO, while negotiations carry on for weeks, maybe even months, involving the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding (something I believe, again, was clarified at the AGM - the reason for no CEO isn't that a recruitment process hasn't been carried out or because there are no suitable candidates, it's just not going to happen while these negotiations are ongoing). For others, delaying that appointment to conclude those negotiations might very well be worth it, but not for me.

  

14 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

100% this for me and the point about rushing is also very good...there will always be a tough season, a crucial transfer window coming up which implies urgency when we should be staying calm. Drifting along for even more months on the basis we might sell a stake to someone will cause us much more harm than that someone walking away.

Agreed!

Edited February 23 by StAndrew7

[capt_oats]

29 minutes ago, JayMFC said:

So my own personal views at the moment - and these are not the views of X, Y, Z, etc etc - are that I personally would argue against the possibility of the Society losing its majority shareholding in the club. There is a sense of urgency that's been attached to all of this that I don't think is particularly helpful - the club is simply in the same position it's been for years, where, if we have a poor season and no cup run and no player sales, a gap needs plugged. It is, of course, very important to sort that out, which is why I totally agree that a balance between fan-ownership & outside investment would be ideal, but I get the impression that a lot of folk think this has suddenly come to the fore at the AGM. The only reason it's being discussed so vocally now is because there are a couple of offers on the table because of the video, not because the club is in peril.

This is 100% where I am.

There's been a lot of discussion recently about poor judgement, to me launching that video (well meaning as it may have been) at a point at which we have no permanent CEO and a chairman who had indicated he's stepping down felt ill-judged and that's regardless of what I thought of the content or the messaging.

To me, sorting that stuff out first then approaching the subject of investment from a position of relative stability and allowing for some joined up thinking would have made far more sense than just launching that video in the way we did.

Instead, as you say, we find ourselves in a circumstance with an urgency attached that isn't helpful in the slightest. 

Edited February 23 by capt_oats