Handsome_Devil Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 52 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: Isn't Netflix $14b in debt? Worth adding a quick Google suggests most folk don't consider their debt problematic...some world. Anyway, I remain highly sceptical of our potential friend Erik but I'm happy we're at least talking to him. The Australians weren't even worth an email saying do one. His biography suggests there is at least a theoretical path to a win-win situation. Whether he'd be willing to move from his position (rumoured at least) to reach that a different matter ofc but only one way to find out. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 They're making a Theo Bair biopic 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 5 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: They're making a Theo Bair biopic He used to be shit, don't you know. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Aldo Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 15 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: They're making a Theo Bair biopic Cocaine Bair? 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 17 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: They're making a Theo Bair biopic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Mac Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 4 hours ago, JayMFC said: Fired up another laptop and it appears fine on here - but I thought I better hurry on and post before I'm silenced on this too... Nah, all joking aside - I've been lurking and reading the thread this week, lots of good points, and I know I've been tagged a few times. Don't want to go back and multi-quote everything, but I do want to respond to a couple of points. Firstly, I believe @capt_oats had a few questions about the Well Society's role in the investment video - I'm going to just take the easy option here and just not answer those. It's something that the Society would respond to officially if someone sent in those questions directly by e-mail. In terms of the current negotiations themselves, I'd just reiterate what it's in the Society statement - that the Well Society Board is not a part of those negotiations. I know there's a lot of comments and questions around why that is, and whether that's right or not, but again, I'm going to opt out from responding to that. Essentially, that's what the situation is - the Chairman & Executive Board have been discussing options with potential investors, and one of those has reached a point that all parties currently involved are happy to proceed to a next stage. That said, it's not the case that the Society is kept entirely in the dark. I think it was confirmed at the club AGM that the Society had met with both interested parties at the time. We have also received some updates on progress and some key aspects of discussions, which I would imagine have allowed each of us as individuals to at least start to form some initial thoughts on whether the deal would be good/bad/indifferent for the club and whether members would be likely to think the deal was good/bad/indifferent for the club, but there's no collective position and we haven't had any discussions around reaching one. Basically, it wouldn't be right to do that until we were in receipt of any finalised agreement that the Chairman & Executive Board had reached with an investor and we were able to fully understand what that could mean for the club and for the Well Society. If we reach that point, Well Society members would be balloted and, in order to make a fully informed decision, would be provided with as much detail as possible. I think it's worth flagging that any potential investor will have been told from the off that their offer would need to be cleared by Well Society members, so it will not come as any surprise that extensive details of any offer should need to be released to members. If any potential investor had a problem with that, I'd suggest they'd have been better looking into a club that wasn't fan-owned - so I don't foresee a problem in making sure members are informed when it comes to a vote. I think @StAndrew7 has raised a question about whether Society members are club shareholders or not. The answer is no - the Well Society is the shareholder and Well Society members are exactly that, members. So it's up to the Well Society as the majority shareholder how it would vote in any shareholder vote - and it is the democratic and moral position that the Well Society's vote would be guided by its members. Just on that too - firstly, there's no guarantees we reach a point where there's a shareholding vote or Well Society member ballot, we all know how negotiations work and things might just not reach that point. However, there's also a discussion to be had by the Well Society Board itself around how it conveys its views on any potential offer. There's obviously no automatic assumption that anybody will care what the Society Board itself thinks is positive or negative but the discussion still needs to be had around the communications that accompany any ballot, whether that's remaining neutral, providing a recommendation one way or another, providing arguments for or against, or whatever. The last thing I'd just highlight is that, while the negotiations carry on between the Chairman & Executive Board and the potential investor, the Well Society is just cracking on with the work it needs to do as majority shareholder. No-one would expect the Society just to sit on its thumbs assuming transformational investment is on the way, instead we continue to approach things with October's refreshed Board, and the fresh approach and enthusiasm that has resulted, by ploughing on with a lot of work to ensure that fan-ownership is even stronger in the future, regardless of what happens here. Contrary to what some people seem to enjoy suggesting on Twitter, fan-ownership demonstrably works, the previous years have shown us that quite conclusively. However, it absolutely can - and needs - to be better. The workstreams that the Society has formed have already hit the ground round with some fantastic work underway in comms, governance, events, fundraising and membership. As the comms workstream lead, I'm buzzing about the standard of contributor we've got on board (at the risk of complimenting a P&B stalwart too much ) and we've already done some fantastic work around identifying what needs to improve - a comms strategy will be finalised in the next week or two, and a return to a standalone Well Society website, that provides members with all the actual information they want and need, is already underway. And as a whole, the Well Society Board continues to put together its own strategy and plan, for both the Society and the football club, that it is hoped members can put their faith in should the Society remain as majority shareholder. So I think at our end, we're just cracking on feeling quite positive about what we're doing - the Well Society will grow, members will find that the information and experience they've been deprived or found difficult to access beforehand is soon accessible, fan-ownership will continue to work, and I'm personally very enthusiastic that the new CEO comes into the club with a wealth of experience around income generation, following a recruitment process that the Well Society Board was heavily involved in. So aye, not actually sure if any of that is particularly useful as such. Basically, the Chairman & Executive Board will continue to discuss things with the potential investor, while the Well Society continues the work we'd identified needed done prior to the investment video even going out - work that we're really positive about and work that we think will see growth in the Society, increased income generation in the club, and a platform to take the already-working fan-ownership model at Fir Park, and make it better. Of course, the perfect addition to that is positive investment that works for both the football club and the Well Society, and so if that is what comes from these negotiations, then that will be a further thing to be positive about. Thanks Jay for a well informed and balanced response . The question im about to ask may be more suited to the WS as a whole but I’m on here browsing so I’ll ask you anyway Should the Exect Board and the Investor come to a successful /ratified agreement then it will be passed down to the Well Society Board for there perusal and members balloted . What I’d be interested to know is after the WS have poured over it and balloted its members will ther be an indication as to how the WS board view it . EG.‘we the WS board have scrutinised the deal and would /would not recommend to accept/reject this deal . Then include the reasons why This would be similar to how most trade unions work with recommendations to reject or accept Ultimately it’s down to the members to vote how they see fit but from my perspective this would form part of my vote decision 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: Worth adding a quick Google suggests most folk don't consider their debt problematic...some world. Anyway, I remain highly sceptical of our potential friend Erik but I'm happy we're at least talking to him. The Australians weren't even worth an email saying do one. His biography suggests there is at least a theoretical path to a win-win situation. Whether he'd be willing to move from his position (rumoured at least) to reach that a different matter ofc but only one way to find out. 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. Edited April 5 by StAndrew7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 25 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: 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. Maybe it just indicated a willingness to be flexible and negotiate...perhaps a carrot, perhaps a bluff, who knows. What I would say is that entering any scenario where the scores of minor shareholders suddenly hold a balance of power shouldn't be considered. @capt_oats and others have mentioned again that while this guy obviously has an admirable record in his field, beyond an interest in sport there is nothing to suggest the day to day dirty work of running a club is on his agenda. Which seems to tie in with us going ahead with the new CEO appointment. As said, it doesn't seem necessary for him to have a controlling stake to do what we presume he wants to do - if he offers some money, lots of expertise and a positive attitude, we'll welcome him with open arms to do almost whatever he wants in his field, taking the majority of the risk and reward, while we protect ourselves for down the line. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 15 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: Maybe it just indicated a willingness to be flexible and negotiate...perhaps a carrot, perhaps a bluff, who knows. What I would say is that entering any scenario where the scores of minor shareholders suddenly hold a balance of power shouldn't be considered. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayMFC Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, Minty Mac said: What I’d be interested to know is after the WS have poured over it and balloted its members will ther be an indication as to how the WS board view it . EG.‘we the WS board have scrutinised the deal and would /would not recommend to accept/reject this deal . Then include the reasons why This would be similar to how most trade unions work with recommendations to reject or accept Ultimately it’s down to the members to vote how they see fit but from my perspective this would form part of my vote decision Yeah, I think this is along the lines of my own thinking. I'm a trade union rep in my workplace, so I'm well versed already in terms of balloting members and including recommendations etc. On a personal level, I don't think it's logical to have a ballot that doesn't include some sort of comms from the Well Society Board around a particular view or views. Now, as I said in my post earlier, members don't need to care a jot what those views are - but, perhaps unseen, Society Board members put a load of time and effort into the Society, the fan-ownership model, and the club more widely, and so some Society members (at least) may agree that there'll be a level of knowledge, understanding and experience that's built up there, and that the subsequent views from the Board might be worth considering (as you suggest). What that looks like though still has to be ironed out. Everything is still very much hypothetical, including even the negotiation getting to a vote, and it's impossible to know just now whether any final offer would be unanimously supported/opposed by the Well Society Board, whether a majority would support/oppose, or what - and why. So once we reach that point, it'll be a case of establishing some sort of position and then working out how that's best communicated to members. But generally, I do think it would be very odd for the Society's position on any offer not to make up some of the comms in any ballot. Edited April 5 by JayMFC 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 It was queried earlier why some of the debt wasn’t repaid to the WS. Is it not the case that in the event of a future administration event that there would be an advantage if the WS was the major creditor? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 13 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: 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. Aye, as much as the thought of people desperately lobbying me to secure the voting weight of my 10 shares or whatever it is, it's hardly conducive to smooth business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 3 minutes ago, ropy said: It was queried earlier why some of the debt wasn’t repaid to the WS. Is it not the case that in the event of a future administration event that there would be an advantage if the WS was the major creditor? Correct. Though it should be said this wasn't part of a cunning plan, more a side perk of not asking the club to take money out of the immediate budget for repayment. It's not how I think the reserves should have been used (it certainly wasn't the original intention) but clearly it's hard to press for the money back now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 It's Ewan McVicar's da 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 17 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: but clearly it's hard to press for the money back now. Due to the elapsed time or some other reason? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Mac Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 32 minutes ago, JayMFC said: Yeah, I think this is along the lines of my own thinking. I'm a trade union rep in my workplace, so I'm well versed already in terms of balloting members and including recommendations etc. On a personal level, I don't think it's logical to have a ballot that doesn't include some sort of comms from the Well Society Board around a particular view or views. Now, as I said in my post earlier, members don't need to care a jot what those views are - but, perhaps unseen, Society Board members put a load of time and effort into the Society, the fan-ownership model, and the club more widely, and so some Society members (at least) may agree that there'll be a level of knowledge, understanding and experience that's built up there, and that the subsequent views from the Board might be worth considering (as you suggest). What that looks like though still has to be ironed out. Everything is still very much hypothetical, including even the negotiation getting to a vote, and it's impossible to know just now whether any final offer would be unanimously supported/opposed by the Well Society Board, whether a majority would support/oppose, or what - and why. So once we reach that point, it'll be a case of establishing some sort of position and then working out how that's best communicated to members. But generally, I do think it would be very odd for the Society's position on any offer not to make up some of the comms in any ballot. Cheers Jay for your speedy response. Like yourself I’ve been involved in many ballots some involving ‘heads of agreements ‘ etc and as always the devil is in the detail. However should the proposals go ahead and go to a vote with the members and it’s still a big ‘if’ I think the recommendations of the Well Society board as to whether to accept or reject will have a massive bearing on how people vote . Hopefully the more informed members are prior to the voteif it ever comes to the vote then the better outcome for the club . Also prior to the vote would it be possible to have an open forum similar to the one held years ago in the Alona when the Well Society was being discussed with all WS members welcome to Q&A session 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 7 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said: Due to the elapsed time or some other reason? It just seems counterproductive... we've been paying half a dozen managers and assistants, we had a squad of 500 we needed to cull etc. It's the softest of soft loans - at least for the time being - I can't imagine anyone wanting to tell the club or manager there's less to spend next season because we're shuffling some non-urgent money back. A different debate could be if new investment comes in...is it best that a money is made available to the club through the dilution of shares or should the Society straight out sell a percentage and get the cash - which would boost the fund for buying back if/when the time comes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 20 minutes ago, capt_oats said: It's Ewan McVicar's da I like him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gianfranco Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 My initial reaction is he sounds like Mark McGhee without a million and one “you know”s. He will also regret telling us to email him any questions as soon as we lose a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 41 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I like him. I enjoyed him taking shots at Dundee. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.