Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[camer0n_mcd]

2 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Would anybody like to know more about my France u21 caps?

[Erik Barmack]

Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

And had you also chatted with Jim before the video went out? You see the lack of clarity in your statements here? Not lies but evasions.

it is a simple question

When did you first have contact with Jim McMahon?

Sorry, I thought I had answered that question.  The first time I chatted with anyone at MFC was after the video went out.  

[Muzz1886]

44 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

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.

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?

Whether you agree with the investment proposal or not, this is my problem with the Well Society in general.  As well meaning as the Society tries to be, buzzwords and fluff is exactly what they major in.    

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, Muzz1886 said:

Whether you agree with the investment proposal or not, this is my problem with the Well Society in general.  As well meaning as the Society tries to be, buzzwords and fluff is exactly what they major in.    

But you'd be willing to give them the chance to disprove this, yes?

[StAndrew7]

@Erik Barmack, quick one from me; if the vote doesn't go in favour of your proposal, is that the be all and end all, for you? Would you consider continuing to discuss potential partnerships, investment etc. with the Well Society and the Club and looking at a different approach, which could be more palatable to WS members/Fans/Shareholders?

[steelman1991]

8 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

I hope nobody has missed, there's no mention of his place on the club board which he serves on at the behest and service of WS members.

Power grab!

Doesn't one automatically follow the other. No seat on WS Board, therefore no seat on Club Board?

[Swello]

11 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

So, this is one of the areas that IS a bit confusing, but our thesis here is to be a minority investor, which we are.  The current share structure of the Club, as an outsider, is a bit hard to untangle, but our offer is to essentially be a 49% holder.  

At present, there are 2 groups - Well Society (the bloc containing "ordinary" supporters, which is important) which accounts for 71%  and "everyone else" (small private shareholders). If the WS holding drops to the intended level, then it would be relatively simple for your holding + a couple of other individuals to overrule/outvote the WS group unless there is something in the governance that we aren't privvy to that stops that. 

This is a very clear power shift, one that potentially removes safeguards and one that many feel is a step too far. Was there ever a proposal to leave the  WS group with 51%+?

[Muzz1886]

5 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

But you'd be willing to give them the chance to disprove this, yes?

Of course.  I can only judge a horse with the races ran so far.  Hence my scepticism. 

[well fan for life]

On 11/02/2024 at 13:00, well fan for life said:

Dunno about you lot but I'd quite like to have a season where we didn't lurch from one crisis straight into another.

[Vietnam91]

1 minute ago, steelman1991 said:

Doesn't one automatically follow the other. No seat on WS Board, therefore no seat on Club Board?

Maybe a WS Board member will confirm later but I gather that conversation has been had and an outrageous answer was offered.

[well fan for life]

34 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

Hey,

I'll chime in here as a long-time reader, but first-time poster, and I didn't really feel like it was appropriate to wade into the conversation until people had a chance to read what's been proposed.  I don't want to clog up space here, but am happy to answer questions, and I also will respond to emails (erik@wildsheepcontent.com) provided that said emails aren't, "Why aren't you in a bin yet?"

As a top-line thought, I want to share that we've worked on this because we think it can help grow MFC.  And that the conditions/levers on this particular opportunity are quite difficult to figure out -- fan-ownership, valuation, investment needed, cultural fit, and our own personal hopes/desires as a family all needed to be balanced.  I will say, from our side, this a (potential) emotional investment, not a purely financial one, and so the key question for us is, "Would the Club be better off in six years with this kind of hybrid structure in place?"

If the answer is no, I'm still going to root for MFC and will join TWS.  I do also want to add that both the MFC and TWS Boards have been generous with us in trying to find common ground, and I believe those with whom I've spent time can vouch that we do care about trying to improve the Club.  So, if helpful, I'm here if there are questions I can answer and hope that the context above is helpful.

Erik

Chat, is this real?

[Erik Barmack]

2 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

@Erik Barmack, quick one from me; if the vote doesn't go in favour of your proposal, is that the be all and end all, for you? Would you consider continuing to discuss potential partnerships, investment etc. with the Well Society and the Club and looking at a different approach, which could be more palatable to WS members/Fans/Shareholders?

I haven't really thought about it.  But I would say that I haven't been part of a single business where the structure hasn't morphed over time.  And I will also say that we're not keen to jam anything through -- our belief is that our approach would only work if MFC, TWS and stakeholders all feel galvanised by wanting to work together.  If the feeling is undemocratic (like something getting is jammed through) or the vibe that we get is that we're framed as dumb, gross Americans who are here to wreck things, then I don't think tweaks/edits/revisions will make sense regardless.  If there's a vibe that we're all excited but certain things needs to be improved, then sure -- I think that's part of how you make any organization better.   (I realize this is a bit of a non-answer, but I just haven't really thought about your question thoroughly yet.)

[capt_oats]

Stepping away from *all this* (waves arms in the general direction of stuff) for a second (mildly annoyed the Tweets aren't threaded).

Edited June 10 by capt_oats

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

@Erik Barmack

Right now the Well Society have in the region of £1m loaned to the club.

Why should the society forgive £500K. A full quarter of your investment for no return?

 

[Erik Barmack]

5 minutes ago, Swello said:

At present, there are 2 groups - Well Society (the bloc containing "ordinary" supporters, which is important) which accounts for 71%  and "everyone else" (small private shareholders). If the WS holding drops to the intended level, then it would be relatively simple for your holding + a couple of other individuals to overrule/outvote the WS group unless there is something in the governance that we aren't privvy to that stops that. 

This is a very clear power shift, one that potentially removes safeguards and one that many feel is a step too far. Was there ever a proposal to leave the  WS group with 51%+?

In our proposal, it's explicit that we can't acquire more than the percentage allotted.  The voting structure for the Board, which effectively makes decisions for the Club, would have 3 WS members, and 2 club members, and 3 members from our investment.  We're asking for a deciding vote in the case of a tie, but it's important to remember that we can't just hire/replace the club member votes -- and especially important to note that we want those people to be autonomous and to vote independently.  This is slightly in the weeds, but very much in keeping with 50+1 models in Germany, which have protected clubs there from takeovers.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, Erik Barmack said:

In our proposal, it's explicit that we can't acquire more than the percentage allotted.  The voting structure for the Board, which effectively makes decisions for the Club, would have 3 WS members, and 2 club members, and 3 members from our investment.  We're asking for a deciding vote in the case of a tie, but it's important to remember that we can't just hire/replace the club member votes -- and especially important to note that we want those people to be autonomous and to vote independently.  This is slightly in the weeds, but very much in keeping with 50+1 models in Germany, which have protected clubs there from takeovers.

If this is modelled on the 50+1 models of Germany why have you not proposed that model with the Well Society retaining 50+1 shores?

[Swello]

20 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

I hope nobody has missed, there's no mention of his place on the club board which he serves on at the behest and service of WS members.

Power grab!

Where to start with that. This sums up why the relationship between the WS board and Exec board needs re-done. He (and Tom Feeley) should be taking the mandate given to them by the WS to these board meetings, not the other way round. It's quite bizarre.

More importantly, I like the sound of this striker that @capt_oats shared - that's more like it. I am also reminded that Casper Sloth scored a goal from the halfway line, so....

[MurrayWell]

The Thread is unrivalled. 

Not much else to say at this point. Very annoyed, disappointed, angry even by the executive board and their valuation of a club that means so much to the community it's part of, a community that has been told to know its place and that has consistently been devalued by folk in "charge" and in "power". Hearing that the folk running things at the executive board level don't actually think all that much of it either really leaves a sour taste. 

I like to think I've been measured and consistent in my posts during this, pretty much "let's hear what folk have to say but let's not throw away what we have", bit pissed off today though. 

Don't know EB or any other potential investors, intentions may well be honest and come from a good place. The valuation is a disgrace though, genuinely atrocious, and that is on Jim McMahon and his cronies. 

[Erik Barmack]

7 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

@Erik Barmack

Right now the Well Society have in the region of £1m loaned to the club.

Why should the society forgive £500K. A full quarter of your investment for no return?

 

It's not exactly that amount, but the reasoning is that a Club with a "cleaner" balance sheet is more valuable to all shareholders over time.  Right now, there's debt sitting on the balance sheet and I do not believe that TWS ever expects to have that money repaid and so the argument is that you want the Club to be as healthy as possible in the future in the case that future investment is needed.  I will say that, when I met with TWS Board, I didn't quite appreciate the emotional feeling of, "Hey, we laboured to put this in, what are you doing?" And we had a more aggressive position initially, which I felt was better for the Club long-term, and so came to this proposal as a kind of compromise.  As for the overall picture, we tried to look at the total amount that TWS has put into the Club + what we're asking to have the Club properly capitalized over the next six years, and then made sure that our investment was proportionately higher to arrive at something that felt 50/50 in total.  Again, that may not be the answer that you want, but that's the spirit of how we thought about coinvestment.

 

1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

If this is modelled on the 50+1 models of Germany why have you not proposed that model with the Well Society retaining 50+1 shores?

That is effectively what we've tried to do.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, Erik Barmack said:

It's not exactly that amount, but the reasoning is that a Club with a "cleaner" balance sheet is more valuable to all shareholders over time.  Right now, there's debt sitting on the balance sheet and I do not believe that TWS ever expects to have that money repaid and so the argument is that you want the Club to be as healthy as possible in the future in the case that future investment is needed.  I will say that, when I met with TWS Board, I didn't quite appreciate the emotional feeling of, "Hey, we laboured to put this in, what are you doing?" And we had a more aggressive position initially, which I felt was better for the Club long-term, and so came to this proposal as a kind of compromise.  As for the overall picture, we tried to look at the total amount that TWS has put into the Club + what we're asking to have the Club properly capitalized over the next six years, and then made sure that our investment was proportionately higher to arrive at something that felt 50/50 in total.  Again, that may not be the answer that you want, but that's the spirit of how we thought about coinvestment.

 

That is effectively what we've tried to do.

As to the bold it makes the Well Society who would hold 47% of the shares half a million pounds poorer. How is that good for shareholders? It seems one major shareholder is taking a hit to their assets.

As you say there is no immediate need for the Well Society to ask for repayment so there is no ongoing expense of these loans staying on the books as is.

It seems that a "clean" balance sheet would only be necessary if you were going to look for more outside after you achieve your takeover which would of course dilute the Well Society's standing even further.