Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Handsome_Devil]

1 hour ago, Wellwatcher said:

I agree that this thread has possibly become an echo chamber of negativity from a few dominant posters and similar to the WS vote on not retaining 50+1% may not reflect the opinions of the majority. It would be interesting to read some positive comments on the proposal, other than EB, as the Twitter poll suggests some people are not against it.

I would like to hear more of what EB will bring to the club, other than a documentary, that could result in growth of the club and his motivation for investing.

Somewhat controversial but if the WS membership voted for possible dilution from 50% ownership is the current board reflecting the views of the members?

St Mirren don't seem to have a problem with fan engagement with SMISA having 51% ownership.

 

Plenty of folk on here who are negative about the deal stated at the time they had voted yes to consider (not me - I'd always have 51% as a red line). But yeah, there's no doubt this thread is an echo chamber (with the odd exception), agreed. 

The point about the representation of the board is interesting but essentially it's a quirk of timing. They were all elected to a fan ownership organisation at the latest by autumn, so naturally you'd expect them to believe in it. This all only kicked off later... it'll be interesting to see if there's more diversity in the next election.

As for hearing from EB, that's an each to their own issue...I care very little for it when he's made an appalling offer. When he claims he's interested in the fans and a fair cooperation etc but wants immediate control for 350k, I simply don't believe him because his actions are far apart from his words. And I would point out he can say whatever the hell he wants because if he wins the vote there is certainly no comeback.

If the simplest solution is probably the most likely, his motivation is less likely that he looks great in claret and amber or he loves our 'story' but he thinks he's getting a cracking deal.

But then I've always been a cynical git.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong because I think EB has the potential to bring a lot to the club and his areas would complement Caldwell and the Society well.

Until he puts that in writing in his formal offer though, nothing he says will change my opinion.

Anyway, welcome to the forum!

 

[Swello]

34 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

The WS membership, in a non binding vote with no context of whom and nature of the offer, voted to consider possible dilution and become a minority shareholder. This allowed Erik a seat a the table.

I thought the vote was the right thing to do at the time (and Jay explained the challenges with it in detail at the time) - but I (and probably others) thought that was a mandate to consider offers. I would really need one of Dickie or Feeley to explain how that translated into a mandate to actually vote to approve something that the WS board as a whole rejected. 

Also - after this episode is over - can we all take a solemn vow to keep the close season chat to transfer rumours seen on 5-follower twitter accounts and low-res youtube videos of Tommy Coyne chipping goalkeepers?

[camer0n_mcd]

16 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

The previous WS vote showed that the Well Bois and internet notice boards do not reflect the WS view as the majority wanted to know the offer before deciding.

I mean my memory is hardly 100% accurate but I seem to remember that a lot on here and on twitter were saying that we should at least have a look at what offers are on the table and I think it shows in the 2nd poll i linked on here last night from back in February. 

[Vietnam91]

43 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

Hiya - I have enjoyed reading your perspective on the offer, however as you say I would like to read why 3 members of the WS committee thought it acceptable.

The previous WS vote showed that the Well Bois and internet notice boards do not reflect the WS view as the majority wanted to know the offer before deciding. I wonder how many of the WS board have a line in the sand over 50+1%? JayMFC has been very quiet recently

I directed you to @camer0n_mcd post where he showed his straw poll at the time of the “would you consider” vote was in line roughly with the actual result.

His most recent one with 215 votes is 71-29 in favour of rejecting.

If his first poll would have been out by much I would agree with you but it’s been found to be a good bellwether.

Additionally I appreciate many posters on here tend to get greenies from the same people reinforcing the echo chamber thing, I’d hope that something I say resonates, challenge a held view or contemplate an alternative.

I’d rather take people with me on my bus than try to run them over.

Edited June 13 by Vietnam91

[capt_oats]

4 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Plenty of folk on here who are negative about the deal stated at the time they had voted yes to consider (not me - I'd always have 51% as a red line). But yeah, there's no doubt this thread is an echo chamber (with the odd exception), agreed. 

For all this thread may be an echo chamber (it is, well I guess compared to SO) there have still been plenty of negative responses to the offer in the wider landscape - I mean, even non-Motherwell fans have called it out.

I've mentioned before that my mute list has a disproportionate number of Motherwell Twitter on it (the idiot wing) so maybe I'm missing out there but I noticed the likes of @GrantRussell has been vocal with his thoughts, even Barry Anderson who's a fucking Hearts fan chipped in.

Ngl, I'd be curious to know what Flow thinks of the whole debacle.

4 hours ago, Swello said:

I thought the vote was the right thing to do at the time (and Jay explained the challenges with it in detail at the time) - but I (and probably others) thought that was a mandate to consider offers. I would really need one of Dickie or Feeley to explain how that translated into a mandate to actually vote to approve something that the WS board as a whole rejected. 

Largely because that's what it was.

It was explicitly non-binding and the question was entirely vague and non-specific. I'm not even sure it was actually a mandate for anything it was a simple straw poll that was designed to give a steer.

I mean I still voted against but that was entirely down to my interpretation of the question. I totally get that others read it in a different way.

Edited June 13 by capt_oats

[Cedrics Mighty Well Army]

Is this the end? Giving 3/4 of the ground to Livi fans? I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED.

"All home fans will be housed in the John Hunter Stand..."

[Alanos]

Think I voted yes to consider giving up ownership on the basis of looking at what’s offered.

For this one, currently I’m voting no, for the reasons outlined previously. If the offer changes, I’ll reconsider.

For the record, I’d love us to do a deal that works for us as intrigued to see how Eric’s vision pans out.

[18May1991]

Hope to f**k we sign someone today. 
 

And everyday until this takeover talk is done. 
 

Or bring out a strip or two. Preferably not bright orange. 

[capt_oats]

For what it's worth, I went back and hate-watched McMahon's press call when he was attempting to do a victory lap about the *ahem* "success" of his "video" - you know, the one that he rolled out that the WS had no creative input into or veto over, that even Weir distanced himself from and has led us down this path to an entirely unnecessary existential crisis.

What I picked up on was that about 3/4 of the way through him fumbling entirely reasonable questions he essentially explained that he would be entirely happy with a "joint-ownership" model - which to me, in hindsight, was him saying the quiet part loud.

Bear in mind this was before any informal, indicative consultation.

Obviously I wasn't in the room but given where we are I can't help but come back to the idea that the Executive Board have been negotiating on their own agenda rather than on behalf of the WS - the owner of the club.

The fact that Dickie and Feeley were/are also on the WS board meant that they could reasonably point to the WS having been "involved" however as the Society stated at the time they were not directly involved in negotiations which to repeat myself is entirely backward if it has meant that red lines have been ignored as they were inconvenient obstacles and did not "align" with the McMahon view.

Essentially this is where the "good chap principle" falls down. With the position we're in we've been relying on the Executive Board to act on behalf of the owners of the club to negotiate a deal that reflects their interests - instead, what they've done is negotiate something that suits them but completely undermines the WS but offers a path of least resistance while McMahon is rushing out the door.

As I said the other day, it now seems entirely clear that the Executive board have been happy to pay lip service to "fan ownership" but had no interest in acting in service of it.

The quicker they're out of the club the better.

Edited June 13 by capt_oats

[Handsome_Devil]

8 minutes ago, Alanos said:

For the record, I’d love us to do a deal that works for us as intrigued to see how Eric’s vision pans out.

So would I, though I would only be doing so if he was taking the risk and we were secured.

A declared exit strategy might ease some concerns - McCann at Celtic a famous example. Whether or not EB would be believed is another matter ofc but in the absence it leads to classic speculation: I extrapolate, you guess and they push conspiracy theories

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

3 hours ago, Wellwatcher said:

Hiya - I have enjoyed reading your perspective on the offer, however as you say I would like to read why 3 members of the WS committee thought it acceptable.

The previous WS vote showed that the Well Bois and internet notice boards do not reflect the WS view as the majority wanted to know the offer before deciding. I wonder how many of the WS board have a line in the sand over 50+1%? JayMFC has been very quiet recently

Some of Well Society members  were on the club board who released this as their reasoning.

Quote

Rationale

We will now have been in the top division for 40 years, have managed to “balance the books” under fan ownership, improve the ground, training facilities and extend contracts for players who could have significant sell on value. So why think about changing the model?

Two reasons.

We have always seen the WS money as an insurance policy against a major downturn in our finances – relegation would cost us approximately £3.5m and we have had to live with that possibility in the last two seasons. The rainy day money is a static strategy. Is it better to contribute regular annual amounts which can be fed into our budget? Does that make it less likely we will get dragged into relegation? The answer is probably yes, so that is something we need to consider and this transaction provides that opportunity.

 

And secondly, and aligned to that, because it’s the main duty of the Board to look at ways to safeguard the future of the club. Lots of good work is being done to try and increase membership, income from events etc but will that bring in sufficient revenue to protect us totally or even make a significant contribution to our cost base?

Will it allow us to compete and remain in the top level? Or do we need to do more? That is the ultimate question fans and shareholders need to consider.

This deal offers-

• Fan ownership still embedded at the heart of the club.
• New worlds to explore.
• And two safety nets. Buy back plus no value leaving the club for at least six years.

The bold bit is just hair brained thinking.

If there is a black hole awaiting us on relegation why would it be prudent to remove the £1.3m safety net that the Well Society could offer. Simply spending more money day to day is no guarantee of avoiding relegation. "Rainy Day Fund" is a very dismissive term for Well Society Reserves imo.

This Barmack offer does not just offer poor value for the club it is bad for the long term saftey of the club with all Well Society assets essentially turned over to the club who would use them not to create their own strategic reserve but as part of day to day spending.

Investment is no guarantee against relegation.

• Mark Ogren invested money in Dundee United - relegated
• John Nelms invested money in Dundee - relegated
• Ann Budge invested money in Hearts - relegated
• Billy Bowie invested money in Kilmarnock - relegated

As for McMahon's bullet points. It is clear fan ownership is ended with this deal. And as for new worlds to explore? Erik posted a figure of £150,000 that would come to the club for a TV show. That isn't game changing money, not even close to the "Hollywood Millions" envisioned by some people. I have no idea how accurate that £150,000 number is but Erik said it and I am sure he knows own his business.

---

FWIW The difference in operational P/L in Killie's Championship season and first season back in the Premiership was £700,000.

[Erik Barmack]

8 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

I'm afraid that is a misrepresentation and patently untrue, in point (b) you suggest that the club will only be breakeven/positive with you involved and in (a) a loss only happens with the WS as majority shareholder. Your plan puts in £300k yourself and £200k from the WS, so half a million. In a poor season there is still a £250k funding gap (or was .... see below).

Sorry, I didn't suggest that it would only be in black with our investment.  I'm saying, to be clear, that WITHOUT US, the company will either be cash-flow negative or close to neutral.  

In the case where it's negative, someone has to fill the gap.  That, historically, has been TWS.

In the case where it's neutral/positive, money in the club would not "go to nothing."  It should be used to invest in projects/opportunities that grow the club.  I'm merely stating that the cash is either needed (first case) or would help build something (the second case), and nothing more than that.

[Handsome_Devil]

21 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The bold bit is just hair brained thinking.

If there is a black hole awaiting us on relegation why would it be prudent to remove the £1.3m safety net that the Well Society could offer. Simply spending more money day to day is no guarantee of avoiding relegation. "Rainy Day Fund" is a very dismissive term for Well Society Reserves imo.

This Barmack offer does not just offer poor value for the club it is bad for the long term saftey of the club with all Well Society assets essentially turned over to the club who would use them not to create their own strategic reserve but as part of day to day spending.

That bold bit is off the charts. Sadly there's definitely an element of our support it'll appeal to though, those who think administration is imminent etc without binning a successful model.

[Erik Barmack]

One other thing that may be worth discussing -- let's assume, for the moment, that we agree on what fan ownership is (and it's clear to me that this board doesn't view the offer as proper fan ownership, but let's say hypothetically that it did), there are still vastly different ways to implement fan ownership, right?

* Morton, I think, transfers everything over (the budget of the club and fan ownership group are one)

* Hearts is the same, but I believe it's further supplemented by individual benefactors on preferred terms?

* Thistle's trust places a certain amount of running costs from the society into the bank to smooth unpredictable cash-flow

* Exeter, I think, has a very interesting model of fan ownership on two levels, with an individual model combined with a corporate / local business model. 

It seems like, the more aligned the club and fan group are, the more predictably you can budget -- that seems at least partially true with governance, too.  But on the flip side, if the club and fan society are out of synch, it affords the least checks and balances to protect the fan society long-term (but this doesn't seem to be an issue at Hearts).  At any rate, maybe I'm stating the obvious, but a) there may be better or worse ways to think about this issue and b) it's clear that different clubs operate fan ownership in completely different ways.

[capt_oats]

38 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

"Rainy Day Fund" is a very dismissive term for Well Society Reserves imo.

100%. I thought the same.

Again, it's them telling on themselves and feeds into the idea that's often been mentioned that about how the Executive Board view the WS. Not as owners but simply existing as an overdraft.

[Swello]

Following the club’s investment update statement on Monday it has, as encouraged and expected, received multiple comments and questions.

The club will address these by providing a comprehensive update early next week.

In the meantime, good luck to Liam and the rest of the Scotland squad tomorrow evening.

"update"

 

[MurrayWell]

Only our media team could turn a pointless statement about investment questions into Liam Kelly content. 

Edited June 13 by MurrayWell

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

One other thing that may be worth discussing -- let's assume, for the moment, that we agree on what fan ownership is (and it's clear to me that this board doesn't view the offer as proper fan ownership, but let's say hypothetically that it did), there are still vastly different ways to implement fan ownership, right?

* Morton, I think, transfers everything over (the budget of the club and fan ownership group are one)

* Hearts is the same, but I believe it's further supplemented by individual benefactors on preferred terms?

* Thistle's trust places a certain amount of running costs from the society into the bank to smooth unpredictable cash-flow

* Exeter, I think, has a very interesting model of fan ownership on two levels, with an individual model combined with a corporate / local business model. 

It seems like, the more aligned the club and fan group are, the more predictably you can budget -- that seems at least partially true with governance, too.  But on the flip side, if the club and fan society are out of synch, it affords the least checks and balances to protect the fan society long-term (but this doesn't seem to be an issue at Hearts).  At any rate, maybe I'm stating the obvious, but a) there may be better or worse ways to think about this issue and b) it's clear that different clubs operate fan ownership in completely different ways.

Hearts is not the same.

AFAIK James Anderson, who has donated over half the money in Foundation of Hearts has no preferrential terms.  He gives the money to FOH and they in turn loan the money to the club.

If you were to compare yourself to James Anderson you would give your money directly to the Well Society and be an non-executive director.

Of course the Club and Society should not fall out of sync. In Hearts case the FoH own more than 75% of the club and could remove any board member who goes against what the founndation wants.  The reason right now that the Board of Motherwell FC is out of step with the Well Society is that despite owing 71% of the club the Society does not have active control of the board, in essence the society has allowed the tail to wag the dog here.

Some members of the Well Society who are on the board to act in the interests of the Well Society have chosen not to do so and resigned from their Well Society position but seeminngly want to keep their place on the club board.

 

[Vietnam91]

46 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

Sorry, I didn't suggest that it would only be in black with our investment.  I'm saying, to be clear, that WITHOUT US, the company will either be cash-flow negative or close to neutral.  

In the case where it's negative, someone has to fill the gap.  That, historically, has been TWS.

In the case where it's neutral/positive, money in the club would not "go to nothing."  It should be used to invest in projects/opportunities that grow the club.  I'm merely stating that the cash is either needed (first case) or would help build something (the second case), and nothing more than that.

I actually illustrated how next season we will be in positive territory. I know you want to believe what you say but it’s simply incorrect.

The UEFA increase was in the red tops back in February albeit OF centric stories as expected.

The Premier Sports 20 match package is worth £10m a season, announced last week.

Just out of interest at what stage of the negotiating process were you told about the SPFL in advanced discussions for a new TV deal? That alone raises our turnover not far off 8-10% and changed the dynamic of an offer. I’m sure the board would have been kept in the loop like every other club as to how the negotiations were going.

Edited June 13 by Vietnam91

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

If I were on the board of the Well Society this would be my plan of action.

• As a board outright rejection of the current offer by Erik Barmack as it endangers the Well Society and the Football Club.
• Call a General Meeting of the Well Society and fill vacant baord seats.
• As shareholders of Motherwell FC call a General Meeting of the football club and remove Douglas Dickie as a director and installing a new board which has its balance in favour of the Well Society.

from that position it would only then be appropriate to re-enter negotiations for private investment into the football club.