Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, Well Well said: I believe the financial outlook from the club was ok for next season but after that is up in the air hence the need for inward investment. Hardly comfortably in profit. We are comfortably in profit under fan ownership. It's a fact; predicting theoretical losses in the future doesn't change that. There's only a need for investment if you believe the club can't increase revenue by a few hundred grand a year... basically handing over the farm for nothing before even trying that is insane. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour 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 hahahahahahahaha get to f**k, I'm not falling for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, Desp said: The club that's just valued itself at £4m? Their financial outlook? OK. Ahh that makes it perfectly financial viable for the next few seasons then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 10 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Come on Erik. We weren't born yesterday. If you wanted to propose a 50+1 model you would have done it. 46% is not 50+1% and I think we all the critical difference. Trying to invoke German models when that is not what is on the table is very dishonest. Sorry, but I am not being dishonest. We proposing an investment for 49% of the Club. There's TWS and other shareholders who have 50%+ in our proposal. The German 50+1 model often has a fan-owned society that owns a chunk of a club along with local investors. This is actually the most common form of 50+1, and that was the model we pursued because it felt most in line with what we understood was palatable and what we believed was also right for MFC (to be even more explicit, we want to support TWS, and i think if you spoke to any of the members on the WS Board, they'd confirm that this was always our intention). Whether the tactics are right, we can debate/discuss. But that was the goal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, rambunctious said: Pakora. Yay or nay? Someone on P+B with whom I'm friends (or was friends before this proposal) turned me onto an elite Indian restaurant in Glasgow. I went there for three meals when I visited Scotland. My intestines may never be the same, but Yay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: We are comfortably in profit under fan ownership. It's a fact; predicting theoretical losses in the future doesn't change that. There's only a need for investment if you believe the club can't increase revenue by a few hundred grand a year... basically handing over the farm for nothing before even trying that is insane. So why is there this rush for inward investment, black holes in finances?. The chairman has run out of ideas to raise inward investment and is leaving as did the previous CEO..so who will take the club forward and bring in the cash we need to run the club properly without having our fingers x every season that someone will buy a player?...The Well Society.? .don't make me laugh..Again I refer you to their 'Play at Fir park' event which was a bust. So many people think that £4m valuation will keep us in the top league every year along with a couple of handouts from the Well Society. I truly want to believe what your saying and the club will be fine but I have a terrible feeling it isn't. Edited June 10 by Well Well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: We are comfortably in profit under fan ownership. It's a fact; predicting theoretical losses in the future doesn't change that. There's only a need for investment if you believe the club can't increase revenue by a few hundred grand a year... basically handing over the farm for nothing before even trying that is insane. Erik is promising £300K per year. This is less than 5% of our annual turnover in our last accounts. The TV deal for Scottish Football is about to jump by more than 50% in the next contract. A league record breaking sponsorship deal with William Hill. We should be able to increase our own sponsorship deals in turn. So it is likely Erik will be adding a few percent at most to our turnover as he draws out the 6 year period. I also dispute Erik's valuation of the club. Tangible fixed assets (the stadium and all the physical stuff at Fir Park) are valued at £6.3m in our accounts. So our playing squad, IP, SFA licence and various other intangible assets allowing us to run a business that generates £6,.5m in turnover and has been profitable over a long term period are being assigned a negative value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Swello said: 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.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Why are people entertaining this clown? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Erik Barmack said: In our proposal, it's explicit that we can't acquire more than the percentage allotted. A pay-per-game contract is also not allowed. However you can get round it with a low weekly wage and a high appearance bonus. In the same way not being allowed to "acquire" more than 49% doesn't mean another shareholder can't pledge their own personal holding and formally align to take that 49% over 50%. You know, someone who potentially holds at least 3.3% at present inherited from their father and freed up of another gig recently. It's quite feasible one of the three Barmack seats could be given as part of that. But not even required if they refuse to give up their board seat and the 49% holders have casting vote. I mean when majority ownership is aligned with control, contracts, safeguards and all sorts of legal stuff, agreements, rules and articles of association can be rewritten. You know stuff like a binding contract to limit a shareholding. Just a hypothetical really. 1 hour ago, 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. It's non "healthy" as it suits an aggressive takeover narrative masquerading as investment to say it is. The £834k is the softest of all soft loans. A lot of people, as previously outlined, see the WS being majority creditor is a massive safeguard in the event of mismanagement or administration. Also having it written off could hobble the WS or club to enact a buyout (even before adding in the 10% admin fee penalty). 1 hour ago, Erik Barmack said: we had a more aggressive position initially Was that more aggressive position all of the £834k rather than half as outlined today? (heads up, I already know the answer). Edited June 10 by Vietnam91 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: Why are people entertaining this clown? At least be polite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: Why are people entertaining this clown? Aye. I'm an outsider so don't want to say too much as it's Motherwell decision for Motherwell people, but it feels weird. I'm struggling to understand how anything that's being proposed as a positive to this deal can't be done with them being a minority owner rather than a majority owner? Like why does it require the fans losing control of the club for their "marketing expertise" to come on board? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Well Well said: So why is there this rush for inward investment, black holes in finances?. The chairman has run out of ideas to raise inward investment and is leaving as did the previous CEO..so who will take the club forward and bring in the cash we need to run the club properly without having our fingers x every season that someone will buy a player?... That's a good question... because it's there in black and white the business model works. Worried about not selling players? Sure, if Nike stop selling shoes they'll be fucked too. There is absolutely nothing to suggest there'll be a complete collapse in our sporting, scouting and development performance. The worst case scenario (which has never happened) is becoming a concern because it's stretched, sure...but a concerted effort to increase revenue however, under a refreshed regime led by Caldwell, will certainly hope to bump this by the 200-300k needed to feel confident. That's ignoring the increase central revenue we know for a fact is coming. And look, if Caldwell fails, if the Society fails in its new role, by all means we can consider selling up and leaving our fate in the hands of a random. But doing that before giving plan A a serious try is utterly insane imho. Edited June 10 by Handsome_Devil Typos 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: I'm struggling to understand how anything that's being proposed as a positive to this deal can't be done with them being a minority owner rather than a majority owner? There's a good reason you're struggling with that tbf. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 minute ago, Handsome_Devil said: That's a good question... because it's there in black and white the business model works. Worried about not selling players? Sure, if Nike stop selling shoes they'll be fucked too. There is absolutely nothing to suggest there'll be a complete collapse in our sporting, scouting and development performance. The worst case scenario (which has never happened) is becoming a concern because it's stretche, sure...but a concerted effort to increase revenue however, under a refreshed regime led by Caldwell, will certainly hope to bump this by the 200-300k needed to feel confident. That's ignoring the increase central revenue was know for a fact is coming. And look, if Caldwell fails, if the Society fails in its new role, by all means we can consider selling up and leaving our fate in the hands of a random. But doing that before giving plan A a serious try is utterly insane imho. Wish I had your optimism but thanks for taking the time to reply 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ML4 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 57 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said: I agree with you if the Club doesn't want or need future investment down the road. And if we knew that for certain, the debt staying on the books would be irrelevant. The only reason why I've pushed on this particular item is in the case where the Club may want more options. Just as an example, I understand that a lot of protesters (who have told me to go into a "bin") don't like the valuation of the Club at (roughly) 4m pounds. But an investor is actually looking as total assets and liabilities, which includes govt debt that was taken out during Covid and the TWS loan. So, if you have less debt your valuation per shareholder increases, and you have more flexibility to raise capital. That's the reason for working on that point -- it may not be worth the certainty that you give up as a TWS member to say, "We have a hold on this," which I get, but that's the logic behind it. Maybe if an investor was looking at it without context, yes. But the Society loan has no fixed repayment date. And the government loan is on a fixed repayment timeline on very generous terms. These aren’t bank loans or debts falling due to creditors in totality anytime soon. Not aimed at you - but the valuation chat from the club is smoke and mirrors. And so heavily full of jargon it can only be described as an attempt to confuse. The fact is that the club is worth more than this. It has tangible and intangible assets far exceeding the valuation. It has an ongoing non-asset based value in terms of its revenue and revenue potential. Done right, there is a chance to grow the revenues of this club by 100-150%. Then those shares become very valuable, don’t they? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I am sorry but this is weird. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Aye I'm pretty skeptical about the proposal stuff (or at least the parts that aren't over my head) but I think it's pretty commendable of EB to come on here or like this. Or someone doing an elaborate bit, which I can also respect. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: And look, if Caldwell fails, if the Society fails in its new role, by all means we can consider selling up and leaving our fate in the hands of a random. But doing that before giving plan A a serious try is utterly insane imho. I'm very conflicted with the whole thing at the moment. I've been quite open on here that I'm more than willing to consider investment from outside and that I've not a huge amount of confidence in the well society to come up with a great strategic plan given their past. However I do think they should be given the space to develop it. But that has to be at some pace and not put on ice much longer. I hope our new CEO can take some of the lead on that now he's in place as relying on a group of well meaning part time volunteers just sits uncomfortably with me. As much as as people have called our board a bowling or golf club committee this feels been more like it to me. The Barmacks bid in it's current form doesn't work for me so the WS should get a go. But, I'm heavily skeptical there will be something in there that has a route to solid investment and growth and not just ticking over and continuing bucket rattling. As ever though, more than happy to be proven wrong. Would be very happy to be. Edited June 10 by eliphas 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: I am sorry but this is weird. Why? 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.