Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[MP_MFC]

Can only say absolutely fair play to you for taking the time to engage and respond. I genuinely do hope that things can be worked out in a way that appeases all parties as I do believe your intentions are good but as others have said we’ve been burned in the past with good intentions and are now rightly wary about it. 

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, MP_MFC said:

Can only say absolutely fair play to you for taking the time to engage and respond. I genuinely do hope that things can be worked out in a way that appeases all parties as I do believe your intentions are good but as others have said we’ve been burned in the past with good intentions and are now rightly wary about it. 

This echoes what I was about to type as well. Absolutely fair play to you for doing this and engaging with us so comprehensively @Erik Barmack.

 

[RostokMcSpoons]

To echo what @MP_MFC just said, thanks for explaining things further.   There are going to be a lot of "Unconvinceables" here, but given what happened with Boyle's fiasco, we're all nervous.    I've just been reading a former player's memoirs (Kevin Twaddle) and it was a wretched time for all concerned, and we were lucky to escape with the club still in the top flight (which in turn probably saved us from extinction, or an eternity in the diddiest of diddy leagues).

So, on a lighter note, a couple of points of order.  

1. Does your house look like this?






And,

2. Do you intend, at any point, to make Fir Park look something like this




"I think we should be told"

[TheMotherwell1]

Is it too simplistic to suggest terms are renegotiated to explicitly state that the WS will retain at least a 51% majority stake in the club? I think with that guaranteed then a deal could be voted through. 

Edited June 11 by TheMotherwell1

[Busta Nut]

Sorry, but I canny take this seriously. Let us conclude our vote then talk to the folk in charge. 

Yer offer is horrible.

Edited June 11 by Busta Nut

[Blink182]

8 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Is it too simplistic to suggest terms are renegotiated to explicitly state that the WS will retain at least a 51% majority stake in the club? I think with that guaranteed then a deal could be voted through. 

I said similar. I'd imagine if there was an actual 50+1 option for WS only folk would probably come round to it. 

Whole thing seems so mental right now tbh. 

[standupforthemotherwell]

12 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Is it to simplistic to suggest terms are renegotiated to explicitly state that the WS will retain at least a 51% majority stake in the club? I think with that guaranteed then a deal could be voted through. 

The loan which has been asked to be written off could also feasibly be converted to equity but that loses the largest creditor safety net without having the cash available in exchange 

[Handsome_Devil]

21 minutes ago, TheMotherwell1 said:

Is it to simplistic to suggest terms are renegotiated to explicitly state that the WS will retain at least a 51% majority stake in the club? I think with that guaranteed the deal would be voted through. 

Yes and no. I agree that would almost certainly get a thumbs up but team EB are not buffoons (apparently :-)) and understandably want to get as much as they can for as little as possible.

Keeping the Society at 51% is a reduction of about 2/7s, which would leave the minor shareholders at just over 20% and just under 30% for EB. At the same cash numbers, that values the club at just under £7m -  a value many of us may find fair but would represent a significant difference to the purchaser...

Of course, we could make the same offer to Erik as he basically is to us - we would take him seriously and value his partnership but he'll just have to trust us on it because though we're good guys who he can absolutely believe, we're making sure we retain control.

I would certainly sweeten the pot, however those smarter people in the room best see fit - he can take a greater percentage of dividends (ha!) or retain more of the take from the docuseries for example. Or we look at transfer percentages over £2m. Or, or, or.

But that would mean he gets his emotional investment, and the chance of financial reward in exchange for taking on the risk. We get some extra pennies (slightly helpful) and considerable marketing and media expertise (very helpful) but guarantee our future is safe should it all go wrong (the deal breaker).

There will no doubt be more devil in the detail but in principle it's an obvious everyone's a winner scenario ... the fact i can sketch it out in a few minutes on my phone while EB and the EB (see what i did there) didn't land on it in months of discussions suggest simply the interest isn't there for it.

Edited June 11 by Handsome_Devil

[TheMotherwell1]

5 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said:

The loan which has been asked to be written off could also feasibly be converted to equity but that loses the largest creditor safety net without having the cash available in exchange 

Thanks mate. Seems like a bit of a minefield...

[AnderooMFC]

50 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

(1) The design of our offer was always to give fans 50%+.  Because there were discussions with lots of parties, and the actual governance of the Club isn't the easiest to understand, we landed where we did -- but if the main concern was keeping TWS, specifically, at 50%+, I'm sure smart people (not me) could sit in a room and solve it.  Intention matters here.

Not a WS member but if I'm reading stuff right, at the end of the 6yrs you would have 49% and TWS 46%? In what way does that still sound like fan ownership? Or are you counting the private shareholders as "fans" and say that it's still fan ownership because 50+1 is not Wild Sheep? Because that is a different definition of fan ownership than what everyone else is meaning when they say fan ownership.

Again, not a member but I am open to an investor and I think you could have good ideas or experience to grow the club. I'm just doubtful why any of that can't be done with a normal contract or the above mentioned TWS 51% and EB 30ish? "A smaller slice but a bigger pie" you said a few pages ago? 

[Vietnam91]

Oh where to start Erik.

If your plan was always to give the WS 51% then you could have engineered it. However you did make sure you got the maximum you could without the need for a sit in a room with smarter people. However as we've discussed, control is more important than shareholding. Kibble own 27% of St Mirren but pull the strings there with boardroom control which has caused all sorts of issues. A few Partick Thistle fans have also urged caution both here and on X.

The snark comment about your 10% penalty. If you suck, we foot the bill for you sucking, do you see why it appears you're loading the dice? It's also a bit rich to say player sales will probably happen but then predict the club will need WS funds/other outside investment because other revenue streams will fall short. You're picking and choosing to reach suitable narrative.

But on the WS board, for the last 5 months so many hours have been spent holding the club board to account, heading Jim off at the pass and spent dealing with this rather on what they should be. It's a total energy drain which wouldn't be so bad if your offer was any way good.

Onto the club board, I'm sure you're full of praise for them, they entertained this offer when it should have been sent packing early doors. McMahon needed something to say his £20k video worked and yours was the best of a bad bunch. However, you are being given oxygen by outgoing chairman who is hell bent on not letting the WS have any sort of influence under any circumstances. You have also been given lots of feedback and you have chosen to plough on with minor tweaks. We're in a place where the majority shareholder is now having a public vote thrust upon then when they are both empowered and held by their own rules to end this right now because your offer is the opposite of their constitution.

You were told for months that there were parts of your offer that were unpalatable, from the valuation, to the loan forgiveness to the board control. You also got the WS rebuttal days in advance of it's publication so to say you were unaware of the strength of feeling is patently untrue.

As for a convoluted Newcastle United yarn .... can we get serious. You have us at 1/6th the value of Hibs, another team in our league that sold a shareholding only a few months ago.

Your offer is nothing different from some chancer club coming in an offering £500k for Lennon tomorrow. Where you've won is you've got an outside chance because some extraordinary mental gymnastics, revisionism and inventing of rules on the cuff, you get a vote.

[Busta Nut]

He's saying "fans" not WS. 

 

[DeadStar]

Been offline for a few days, have I missed anything?

[Erik Barmack]

2 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

Oh where to start Erik.

If your plan was always to give the WS 51% then you could have engineered it. However you did make sure you got the maximum you could without the need for a sit in a room with smarter people. However as we've discussed, control is more important than shareholding. Kibble own 27% of St Mirren but pull the strings there with boardroom control which has caused all sorts of issues. A few Partick Thistle fans have also urged caution both here and on X.

The snark comment about your 10% penalty. If you suck, we foot the bill for you sucking, do you see why it appears you're loading the dice? It's also a bit rich to say player sales will probably happen but then predict the club will need WS funds/other outside investment because other revenue streams will fall short. You're picking and choosing to reach suitable narrative.

But on the WS board, for the last 5 months so many hours have been spent holding the club board to account, heading Jim off at the pass and spent dealing with this rather on what they should be. It's a total energy drain which wouldn't be so bad if your offer was any way good.

Onto the club board, I'm sure you're full of praise for them, they entertained this offer when it should have been sent packing early doors. McMahon needed something to say his £20k video worked and yours was the best of a bad bunch. However, you are being given oxygen by outgoing chairman who is hell bent on not letting the WS have any sort of influence under any circumstances. You have also been given lots of feedback and you have chosen to plough on with minor tweaks. We're in a place where the majority shareholder is now having a public vote thrust upon then when they are both empowered and held by their own rules to end this right now because your offer is the opposite of their constitution.

You were told for months that there were parts of your offer that were unpalatable, from the valuation, to the loan forgiveness to the board control. You also got the WS rebuttal days in advance of it's publication so to say you were unaware of the strength of feeling is patently untrue.

As for a convoluted Newcastle United yarn .... can we get serious. You have us at 1/6th the value of Hibs, another team in our league that sold a shareholding only a few months ago.

Your offer is nothing different from some chancer club coming in an offering £500k for Lennon tomorrow. Where you've won is you've got an outside chance because some extraordinary mental gymnastics, revisionism and inventing of rules on the cuff, you get a vote.

(1) I received the WS response about twelve [Edited, as I got the release time wrong] hours before it went out (when it was late here).  You don't have to believe me, you can ask the WS board.  I'm happy to debate merits or arguments here, if it's not too testy.  I'm not, however, happy to ignore facts.  I know this is true, because I can tell you exactly when I received it.

(2) I believe that player sales will happen, and that it's likely that TWS will need to help with funding at some point over the next six years.  They are not mutually incompatible.  (But I could certainly be wrong on one or both.)

(3) There are a number of issues that I could have anticipated, that's true, but it's hard to anticipate all without feedback.  What usually happens is that the "other side" proposes against that issue if they want to make a deal.  In this particular case, there were multiple "sides," and not so much feedback.  Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, positionally, just that it's not really a thing to negotiate against oneself.

(4) It is unfair to claim that this offer is the same as low-balling a talented player.  I can understand if the offer is rejected, but the implication is that a) we're not caring about the many stakeholders involved and b) just taking a flyer.  None of the effort that we put into this offer aligns with that kind of mercenary thinking.

(5) On valuation -- again, these aren't mutually exclusive.  We looked at a bunch of data (as can anyone online) to determine fairness.  And here fairness is truly subjective.  In the EPL, the lowest teams are valued at 200m pounds (according to the most recent transactions) and the highest are now close to 6b pounds -- 30x.  I don't think that range exists in the SPFL (nor do I think I should discuss specific team valuations), but comps are helpful.  I just listed a few that we considered, which was by no means exhaustive.

At any rate, I still think these conversations are healthy.  I'm not trying to get into a flame-war here.  Just adding context.

 

 

Edited June 11 by Erik Barmack

[Vietnam91]

Newcastle also had £107m of debt which you ignored in the £300m hypothetical. You are not a fan of an unclean balance sheet after all. This is what I'm talking about picking and choosing data to suit a narrative. But football in an Arab owned EPL club and MFC the only similarity is the ball.

We can't keep ignoring Hibs. When Black Knight bought into Hibs 25% for £6 million were their fans asked to match it?

When you value a football club at £4m, cite interest free loans only one of which has a repayment schedule, ignore the assets on the books, valuation of the stadium and land, licence, SFA & UEFA compliant, heritage and fact its a £7m turnover going concern, then yes you are not caring about the stakeholders and I'd say you're trying to undermine them by massively undervaluing the club.

It would be pretty easy to amend your shareholding to 3% in the first year opposed to 8% so by year six you hold 44% and the WS holds 51% and rightfully give the WS casting vote but you're not going to do that are you?

I think what is telling out of all of this is, if you discount the two with a conflict of interest, 6 of the other 7 WS members who have had extensive time to debate and review the details of your offer think its poor enough to endorse such a strong rebuttal. Your offer works if not enough people get into the weeds of your offer and actually look at the detail and implications.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

4 hours ago, Lobby Dossar said:

Think some on here need a reality check on where we are as a club. Yip fan ownership is great but sorry our fanbase just does not support it. So where does the money come from with the greatest respect to the WS raffles and race nights ain’t going to cut it. Inward investment is essential so who on the Board or WS board can provide that. Energetic amateurs have no chance. 

Let’s look at Hertz as an example 17k members and over 17k season tickets and a philanthropist throwing in couple of million every now and then. 

Apart from us St Mirren and the two cheeks of the same arse every other club in the league now has people willing to put money in. Hell Billy Bowie was prepared to pay Van Veen £5k a week even when McKinnes didn’t want him. 

There's an extensive list of mitigating circumstances that have occured since the WS took majority shares in the club - a global pandemic and all it brought, having to get structural stadium work done and redone - to name but a couple, yet we are still in the black overall. We've had a season with two cup finals and the sale of Turnbull to largely thank for that. Of course, I think that we could have been run more prudently in a number of circumstances in this time, but that goes to show that you that we don't need to be unearthing a wonderkid every year for the model to work. Hopefully we will be able to make good money on Bair and Miller to top up the reserves in that manner shortly too.

Is the Van Veen to Killie deal really something we should see as aspirational? I was only a young boy during administration, but I'm scarred enough by it to know that wasting 5k a week on a sub isn't the direction I want us to take.

[camer0n_mcd]

https://www.glasgowworld.com/sport/calum-butcher-motherwell-exit-why-stuart-kettlewell-deserves-more-praise-4660914

On a slightly different note, I thought this interview Calum Butcher gave to Ben Banks was a good read. 

Interesting to hear him speak so highly about Kettlewell.

[Wellwatcher]

I find it surprising when EB states that there was little feedback from the Well Society on his offer. Given the categoric nature of the WS statement perhaps it would be worthwhile for the WS board and EB to go into further negotiations before any vote is held

[StAndrew7]

2 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

I find it surprising when EB states that there was little feedback from the Well Society on his offer. Given the categoric nature of the WS statement perhaps it would be worthwhile for the WS board and EB to go into further negotiations before any vote is held

The issue with that is the current deal has been unanimously recommended by the Executive Board. They won't renege on that now. The only way I can see a negotiation happening is if and when this deal gets kiboshed. Even then, who's to say EB will come back again?

Edited June 11 by StAndrew7

[Alanos]

On 10/06/2024 at 20:57, one m in Motherwell said:

As far as our Serbian track record goes I’m hoping he’s more Curcic than Belic.  The bold Sasa was pretty ineffectual when he was with us, but the fact he was completely unhinged was good patter. 

He lived downstairs from me in my old flat in Windmill Court. Apart from occasionally playIng music till 4 in the morning and what seemed like a constant stream of takeaways (they rang our bell a lot), he was fairly quiet and unassuming at home anyway.