ML4 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Utterly woeful offer, and a total dogs dinner of a statement from the club. And just pie in the sky loose ideas from Barmack on how to run the club. Step one should be rejecting this. Step two should be the Society board calling an EGM to remove the executive board with immediate effect for publicly saying this deal should be accepted. How can McMahon and the exec genuinely feel this is an appropriate offer? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Swello said: The fact that anyone found this deal acceptable to agree to it in any sense is not far from being a scandal TBH. I think we're beyond that. An outgoing chairmen selling the majority shareholding of the club to a couple of snake oil salesmen for a vastly reduced price? I'd be checking bank accounts of certain folk. This is dodgy as f**k. Edited June 10 by Desp 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 minute ago, ML4 said: Utterly woeful offer, and a total dogs dinner of a statement from the club. And just pie in the sky loose ideas from Barmack on how to run the club. Step one should be rejecting this. Step two should be the Society board calling an EGM to remove the executive board with immediate effect for publicly saying this deal should be accepted. How can McMahon and the exec genuinely feel this is an appropriate offer? Aye. I'm going to log off for a bit now, before I say anything I might later regret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Joke offer, McMahon is a fool. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, Phillips455 said: The rumours that the board were thinking of not even giving this to a vote seem more sensible now. They have come out with a good statement and are doing the right thing but 3 WS board members actually voted for this (and basically making the WS obsolete) - let that sink in. This might be very unfair but I do wonder if people that are on both the Exec and WS board were part of that 3. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 minute ago, Swello said: They have come out with a good statement and are doing the right thing but 3 WS board members actually voted for this (and basically making the WS obsolete) - let that sink in. This might be very unfair but I do wonder if people that are on both the Exec and WS board were part of that 3. It's not difficult to join the dots on that given the statement from the club says "Which is why we are recommending it unanimously as a Board." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Looking at the club statement, a few of the safeguards built in, for reference: Cannot sell ground Cannot change badging/name/colours etc Cannot take on external debt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 minutes ago, Swello said: They have come out with a good statement and are doing the right thing but 3 WS board members actually voted for this (and basically making the WS obsolete) - let that sink in. This might be very unfair but I do wonder if people that are on both the Exec and WS board were part of that 3. Yeah, it's not unfair at all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie McSquackle Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I'll read it all in more detail later but 49% ownership for slightly under £2m over 6 years. Nah, you're alright and watch the door doesn't hit your arse on the way out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 The only value I can see Wild Sheep bringing is their expertise in media and an ability to try and gain Motherwell FC a wider global audience and potential increased revenue on the back of that. But even then that is likely to be short lived. I was open minded but I am also bemused the Board are recommending this offer be accepted. £2m for half the club. Even assuming debt that is a brass neck. Yes it would be nice to get an extra few £000 each year. But we can earn that with an extra place up the league table and better cup runs. Although not guaranteed that is how little is on offer. The final nail in the coffin is the Well Society have to commit to investing £850k over 4 years which is only £400k less than the Barmacks. In return we see our shareholding dwindle while they pick up half the club. WTAF. That is mind blowing 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I was a hard no before the full proposal was seen. I'm now a full f**k off you chancers after reading it... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 minute ago, capt_oats said: It's not difficult to join the dots on that given the statement from the club says "Which is why we are recommending it unanimously as a Board." 1 minute ago, Desp said: Yeah, it's not unfair at all. A wee vote of no confidence on our current Exec board reps should be near the top of the agenda at the WS. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Months of the nauseating charm offensive from that lot, all for this. How embarrassing. Said a while back that I was worried we were looking at a situation where we give up fan ownership for f**k all, what's less than f**k all? As others have said, not against external investment in the right circumstances, but this is genuinely laughable. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I need to read it all first and digest both statements. There's a lot there. Valuation of club aside - but the ultimate outcome being Barmacks 49%, WS plus existing fan stakeholders 51% or am I reading that wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one m in Motherwell Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Wonder if the club are frantically trying to find some more Theo Bair content to chuck out now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, Swello said: A wee vote of no confidence on our current Exec board reps should be near the top of the agenda at the WS. Don't disagree but first things first... let's not be complacent for the next month. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standupforthemotherwell Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, welldaft said: The final nail in the coffin is the Well Society have to commit to investing £850k over 4 years which is only £400k less than the Barmacks. In return we see our shareholding dwindle while they pick up half the club. WTAF. That is mind blowing Also the fact that at the end, half the WS loan is written off. I see absolutely no value in that considering it is interest free and only exists to keep the society as the biggest creditor in an insolvency. I like some of the ideas presented but would be expecting significantly more money or significantly less control. If we wanted to have an MFC docuseries, there is no reason that has to be driven by the largest shareholder 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Well Jim is getting his legacy now, just not as possibly planned. The issue for Barmack is if rejected (which it must be) any other club he knocks on the door of will be forewarned of the sort of "new worlds to explore" nonsense and his lowballing. Some hot takes: WS being instructed to contribute more than it currently raises (approx £140k) to 200k a year. nope! £300k a year and at the end of year two we an buy back and pay 10% admin fee for the privilege. nope! £3.7m club debt .... Considering one is a soft loan from the WS which no repayment schedule and no interest and the other is the COVID loan by the Scottish Government, again zero interest but with a repayment schedule it could be argued that the new pitch it helped fund saving £100k a year in maintenance is a significant chunk of that repayment covered. So hardly toxic debt. nope! If we have been "breakeven since fan ownership", what has the chairman (who has been a constant influence) done to address this by normal commercial means in the interim 7-8 years? Quote "If I was a member of the Well Society, I would be healthfully sceptical of outside investment." Erik Barmack .... BBC interview, 11/APR/24 Is that right aye? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 minutes ago, eliphas said: I need to read it all first and digest both statements. There's a lot there. Valuation of club aside - but the ultimate outcome being Barmacks 49%, WS plus existing fan stakeholders 51% or am I reading that wrong? No, you're correct. It effectively gives EB total control. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, eliphas said: I need to read it all first and digest both statements. There's a lot there. Valuation of club aside - but the ultimate outcome being Barmacks 49%, WS plus existing fan stakeholders 51% or am I reading that wrong? Which makes Barmacks the party with the majority - for less than £2m over 6 years. 0 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.