Vietnam91 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said: I wonder how much has been discussed about this in the past. The WS have been ok with being in a minority on the board while having 70%+ ownership but now it seems to be an issue when that drops. Should have been sorted long before now... This has been brought up repeatedly and dodged. After Les relinquished control his board appointees followed suit. For vast the majority of the years after it was McMahon, Wilson, Flow and Dickie + Feely as WS appointed directors. Flow left and wasn't replaced so it was comprised of 4. In February I asked at a WS Governance initial meeting who had the casting vote. Initially the answer was dodged then we were told "all board members are WS members" as if that was sufficient. It was reluctantly revealed it was McMahon with a "it's never had to be used". At the AGM, Wilson indicated he wished to step down so the board was 3 (McMahon, Dickie and Feely) during the crux of these negotiations with Barmack. No casting vote was required as McMahon in theory could be outvoted. So a natural conclusion is support for this offer at worst and acquiescence at best with a healthy sprinkle of enabling. On the 29th of April, CEO Caldwell and our Head of Finance Lindsay were appointed to the board to make it 5 at present. Why the WS never asked for more places either at the expense of others or when people stood down is a question probably for the co-chairman of the club/chairman of the WS. But that person probably has a few harder questions to answer surrounding how as chairman of the fan owned majority shareholder group, they are seemingly for an offer that takes that entity they "lead" into minority status, commits it to contribute more than it earns and writes off £434k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 42 minutes ago, one m in Motherwell said: Wonder if the club are frantically trying to find some more Theo Bair content to chuck out now. Liam Kelly has just had lunch 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: Liam Kelly has just had lunch And now that we've had September, the monthly reviews are about to *really* go downhill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambunctious Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 26 minutes ago, rambunctious said: Going by some of the rumours over the last couple of months I was expecting a fairly underwhelming offer, but this is so dreadful I can't help but feel I must be missing something. Every time I read it it seems worse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 8 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: Liam Kelly has just had lunch I'm convinced Kelly's diet is either Huel and non GMO carrots or Dib Dabs and Tizer ..... there is no middle ground. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Thought for the afternoon: Just how bad were the other offers if this shit got through? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 23 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: 3 Society board members voted for this shite. Feely and Dickie are the obvious one's as mentioned by @capt_oats earlier on. I wonder who the other one is, get them named and shamed. Kirkwood. That's my guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'WellDel Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Absolute fucking disgrace that these clowns at the top of the club should even consider recommending this joke offer for acceptance. The sooner they f**k off, the better. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 4 minutes ago, MurrayWell said: Thought for the afternoon: Just how bad were the other offers if this shit got through? Not only that, we were told at the AGM that some things put to the club were not workable and red lines and investors were told that. What we see today is a 5th or 6th draft, offer one must have been distastefully heinous but he was still entertained to put this forward 6 months later. From the AGM on the 21st of February till the 29th of April (9.5 weeks) in the middle of the all of this the WS had a board majority. Wither the WS representatives on the club board voted as per the intentions of a majority of the WS board (as they should do) is a question they should be asked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 The clowns at the top clearly thought folk would hear "Netflix" and have the wool pulled over their eyes. None of us knew who Erik Barmack was before this saga of shite, that's always worth remembering. While it may not be perfect, anyone trading fan ownership for vague Star Trek themed bullet points such as "new worlds to explore" (I'm sure my work would pish themselves if I asked for budget to be signed off for something as vague as that), really needs to have a word with themselves. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) "The Outgoing Chairman" chat is absolutely delightful, kudos to the WS. Get this in the fucking sea, where it belongs. The maths just doesn't add up, as rightly detailed by the Society. I do still think there's potential for something that can be done with Wild Sheep as the WS have said in their statement but just not this crock of shite. Bin it, start again without McMahon at the helm and let's get on with it. Edit: Barmack mentions they've been approached about doing a docu-series on the club already; so go ahead and do it. Demonstrate what you're about and that the business plan works, then come back with something a bit more substantial. Edited June 10 by StAndrew7 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 4 minutes ago, MurrayWell said: vague Star Trek themed bullet points such as "new worlds to explore" That's not a business plan, or a strategy, or, well, anything, really. It's not a landing party I'd be volunteering for. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Aye I've said before I didn't have the steadfast emotional attachment to fan ownership that others do but what the f**k is this, like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I do still think there's potential for something that can be done with Wild Sheep as the WS have said in their statement but just not this crock of shite. Bin it, start again without McMahon at the helm and let's get on with it. Yeah, I've always been (absurdly, clearly) optimistic there was a compromise to be found. But to me it's a massive red flag that despite his warm words and guarantees, EB is still after control. And that he wants immediate control for a song, quite frankly, screams utter chancer. I don't blame him for asking (we're all capitalists now comrade) and I suspect McMahon strung him along on the likelihood of success but there's big flashing warning signs literally all through that offer and if we we're stupid enough to vote for it we deserve whatever we get. By all means sit down with him and start again but I wouldn't be hopeful. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 The plan may be worth exploring, it’s something different. But the financials are wrong. Which of the plans couldn’t be followed through if their total ownership was 25%? After 2 years 2 x £300k + 2 x £200k have been contributed to the club i.e. £1M, and the WS can buy the shares back for £660k, if any of the £1M is left on the books does that stay with the club or get squirreled away by the outgoing regime? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Is anyone else... a bit disappointed with how this has all been announced? Like, I'd have hoped for far more than a statement on the website, which is overly long and not brilliantly constructed etc. As a shareholder I'd have wanted a bit more than that, posted/e-mailed directly to me etc. rather than it being thrown up onto the official site. Might just be me? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz1886 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, eliphas said: Having read it - it just seems a lot of hassle for f**k all or less than f**k all, really. Like others, I'm up for exploring outside investment. But, no ta. Interesting note that the WS are still open to working with Barmack's in the future. So they can be full on baddies. Now over to the WS and their strategic plan.... I'm going to guess that the WS strategic plan will be not very good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, StAndrew7 said: Is anyone else... a bit disappointed with how this has all been announced? Like, I'd have hoped for far more than a statement on the website, which is overly long and not brilliantly constructed etc. As a shareholder I'd have wanted a bit more than that, posted/e-mailed directly to me etc. rather than it being thrown up onto the official site. Might just be me? I know what you're saying - but I would rather this is out in the public domain as quickly as possible without shareholders (which I'm one of) being ITK. The right time to involve shareholders would have been earlier in the process where they could probably have given some constructive feedback (although after hearing the chat at a few AGM's, I'm not so sure) I thought after a couple of hours, I would have calmed down about all this - but I can't get my head around any part of it. What will be interesting will be to see how less online WS members vote as I'm still concerned that "any investment is good" or the £2m figure will mean that it will be closer than expected. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Muzz1886 said: I'm going to guess that the WS strategic plan will be not very good. I don't think that's fair; it's been under development since January and with a significant number of experts in business, football, communications etc. involved in the process. Frankly, I think it'll be more detailed and better than what's on the official site from McMahon and Barmack; it's all buzzwords and fluff talk. 3 minutes ago, Swello said: I know what you're saying - but I would rather this is out in the public domain as quickly as possible without shareholders (which I'm one of) being ITK. The right time to involve shareholders would have been earlier in the process where they could probably have given some constructive feedback (although after hearing the chat at a few AGM's, I'm not so sure) I thought after a couple of hours, I would have calmed down about all this - but I can't get my head around any part of it. What will be interesting will be to see how less online WS members vote as I'm still concerned that "any investment is good" or the £2m figure will mean that it will be closer than expected. Aye, I wasn't really meaning for us to get information before anyone else; more that there would at least be something in there that acknowledges shareholders will receive an information pack or a secure link to download documents X, Y, Z for information etc. And I'm the same; I only saw it about an hour ago and I'm still furious that this is where we've gotten to. What sort of shite has the Executive Board been pushing to make Barmack think this would go through? Edited June 10 by StAndrew7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I'm still at a loss how 71.7% goes to 46% (approximately a factor of 1.6) 28.3% goes to 5% (a factor of almost 6) To give Erik 49% Maybe someone versed in bending physics and space time can't share that. 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.