Vietnam91 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 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 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 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. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: 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. Dickie wouldn't be the only one I'd be removing. They would look a bit silly reneging on the vote mind, I can't see them doing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowsdower Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 I appreciate Erik taking the time to come on here and discuss, but regardless of the intentions of the Barmacks, we couldn't be in a worse position to negotiate external investment and control, and those negotiations being led by the clueless cronies on our board is terrifying. Our current executive board have treated the well society with absolute disdain and gone out of their way suppress the ownership groups influence, and as such every one of them should be fired into the sea the second this bid is rejected. I believe the WS board members who voted for this have been on the board for a few years, which tells me everything. They are responsible for the state of the Society's relationship with the club, and seemingly just wanted to be on the board for the prestige of it. The energy and expertise displayed by the newer recruits to the WS board has been encouraging, and they should get the chance to implement this properly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 Just now, Handsome_Devil said: Dickie wouldn't be the only one I'd be removing. They would look a bit silly reneging on the vote mind, I can't see them doing it. Reneging on what vote? The Well Society have never promised a vote. The proposal negotiated by Erik and the Club Board promised a vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 5 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said: 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. Sorry, to be clear again, I don't have a POV on cashflow on a particular year. It's possible that it could be neutral this year. I am merely saying that TWS capital doesn't disappear. It's either used to cover gaps or for investment. I'm not opining on this year because there are too many variables to understand it (I don't know what the cashflow situation will be). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 22 minutes ago, MurrayWell said: Only our media team could turn a pointless statement about investment questions into Liam Kelly content. Burst out laughing at that. The executive board and Well Society are seemingly on the brink of civil war and we're still getting the hourly Liam Kelly updates. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Reneging on what vote? The Well Society have never promised a vote. The proposal negotiated by Erik and the Club Board promised a vote. Ah, they said "We anticipate..." In their statement, I thought they were firmer. In that case, aye, f**k it, to the barricades. They can even use Dickie (and Feely I guess) as justification. Edited June 13 by Handsome_Devil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazylegsjoe_mfc Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) The Thread this week has been the online equivalent of sitting in a big table at the pub and not getting a word in. Every time I go to type the conversation seems to have moved on I'm against the deal, personally. My points on it are as follows: The Well Society has one chance to decide whose hands the club is in. We wouldn't be able to stop the sheep mob, or any prospective owner selling it to a charlatan or an asset stripper down the line. Writing off part of the loan whilst still having to invest a shit tonne of money, to lose influence doesn't seem to bear a signficiant enough reward. The premise of the Well Society becomes redundant and I'd consider cancelling my DD if majority shareholding was lost. Was the plan just to keep the seat warm until someone came along? If Maureen and Douglas have been on the WS board for years and as such would be considered the pioneers of us becoming fan owned, is their resignation an admission that they think fan ownership has failed? If so, surely the buck stops with them more than most. We've actually turned a profit overall since the WS has been in position. The fact the two biggest contributors are cup runs six seasons ago and the sale of a player four years ago tells us we don't need to be making a 7-figure sale every transfer window. I'm reasonably confident that in Miller, we have a player who could generate a good seven figure fee like Turnbull did and another in Bair who we can cash in on. We could be further in the black, were it not for a global pandemic and if we were run better operationally. COVID was no ones fault. I'd say the structural work needing repeated, having three managers and their assistants on the payroll at once and having to sign every man and their dug in January lies more with the exec board and the lack of a permanent CEO. Edited June 13 by crazylegsjoe_mfc 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie McSquackle Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 14 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said: 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. To play devil's advocate here, the additional money from an increased TV deal is also paid to our direct competitors so doesn't actually give us an advantage over them in avoiding relegation/ qualifying for top six or whatever. It's likely that player budgets will just increase across the board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 11 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said: To play devil's advocate here, the additional money from an increased TV deal is also paid to our direct competitors so doesn't actually give us an advantage over them in avoiding relegation/ qualifying for top six or whatever. It's likely that player budgets will just increase across the board. This increased income goes to plug the funding gap which is the primary reason for inviting investment. With it seemingly plugged that narrative is suddenly nipped in the bud. At present our total debt could be paid off if we used our cash in the bank and insisted upon monies owed to us. Dundee, Dundee United, etc. all have debt that needs serviced in the millions of pounds attached to their clubs. To be fair I did add that caveat this morning. 10 hours ago, Vietnam91 said: Remove the Bair sale, this increased income plugs our funding gap in a poor season. However, as it will be universal for the league we will merely keep parity with our peers. The Bair sale allows us to in theory get an edge. What is also not factored is if the manager will ask to operate as we do at present, with a projected loss looking to satisfy the gap in the hope we can achieve extra success as that will in turn be rewarded with additional prize money. 24 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said: Sorry, to be clear again, I don't have a POV on cashflow on a particular year. It's possible that it could be neutral this year. I am merely saying that TWS capital doesn't disappear. It's either used to cover gaps or for investment. I'm not opining on this year because there are too many variables to understand it (I don't know what the cashflow situation will be). Erik, you're looking to buy a £7.5m turnover business, become chairman and be majority shareholder. You really should be on top of cashflow. The response when presented with published facts is not to shrug your shoulders and go "there are too many variables to understand it" because it doesn't help your cause conveying you are taking this as seriously as you should. You avoid difficult questions because they are inconvenient. I'll ask again. At what stage of the negotiation were you first told of the SPFL discussing things with Premier Sports and were you given a ballpark idea of the value of that deal to the club? How has this extra income altered your offer? The TV deal alone is £50m over 5 years. I guess it be made up of an equal fee per club and featured live money on top. I don't think it's wildly off mark to suggest we would look to earn £2.5-3m over those 5 years (All based on top flight status of course). Throw in the increased Euro money which could worst case be an extra £200k per season we're at £3.5m-4m <checks notes> DOUBLE what you are offering for HALF the club, ONE YEAR EARLIER. Oh and the WS on current funding levels would be sitting on £1.5m in the bank and £868k club loan fully intact. < bong> ....... that is either the penny dropping or the arse falling out of your argument. If some people as so enthused about what your skills and experience could bring to new revenue generation, the WS could bring Wild Sheep Sports in on a consultancy retainer and pay with it from their swollen funds to pick your brain. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfans68 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 Seeing as our potential investor seems to follow this thread I thought I'd give him a shot of "realism" in how you would achieve the levels of growth needed to make a sustained difference at the club . Its simple - you spend 100 million immediately on the team with circa 20m a year after. That buys you the premiership and champions league money which allows you over a 5-6 year period to recoup your investment all going to plan. During this time you will potentially build up to draw an extra 3-4k extra fans a week to the stadium as they chase the success (lets face it in the last 50 years our support has largely been stagnant at its current levels). Otherwise forget it because even 10-20m a year will only get you 3rd at best and that will bring you an extra few hundred fans on a good day, been there done that. Even then you face a fight to get those fans and keep them because you face the west of Scotland bigotry that keeps the ugly sisters full each week and sadly that's a very powerful force. Now of course this is all pie in the sky stuff and nonsense numbers rather than realism but that's the size of hurdle that's in the way of expanding our support by anything like even 3-4 thousand consistently. There is no magic bullet that will do it, AI and Salesforce will do nothing but cost us money because you simply don't understand the fan base that's out there. Over 50 years following the Well I can assure you the ones that will drag themselves out each week are already doing it and sticking their money into the society if they can/believe in it, there aren't tens of thousands sitting at home waiting for a messiah to turn things around or drop them a text/email asking them to turn up. Clever marketing and a documentary will change nothing - has anyone watched the Grimsby Town one on Amazon? Admittedly there are probably a few hundred fans that really just need their mates to drag them along rather than sit in the pub but that's realistically where we are. You wont change that, I know you think you can but plenty have tried before and they just aren't there to be gotten. Simple fact is we are a small provincial club that occasionally does something a bit special and while its getting harder to do that, we're pretty secure financially and as long as we operate within our means we'll continue to be so. I'm glad you're interested in our club, I'm glad you put together a well thought out and financially sound offer (for you, it will kill the society as people will quit donating leaving them a hole to fill) but frankly it wont change anything and when you get bored and decide to try something else I worry about what will have happened to my club, to our safety net in the Well Society and just who you'll hand the club over to because we will have lost our say in decisions like that. A lot of people put in a lot of effort to get us where we are, even Les the Rangers fan from Barbados did right by us to get us here and we owe him a huge debt of gratitude. Having got here I cant and never will accept anything that takes away fan ownership and for that reason I'm out. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 19 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said: This increased income goes to plug the funding gap which is the primary reason for inviting investment. With it seemingly plugged that narrative is suddenly nipped in the bud. At present our total debt could be paid off if we used our cash in the bank and insisted upon monies owed to us. Dundee, Dundee United, etc. all have debt that needs serviced in the millions of pounds attached to their clubs. To be fair I did add that caveat this morning. Erik, you're looking to buy a £7.5m turnover business, become chairman and be majority shareholder. You really should be on top of cashflow. The response when presented with published facts is not to shrug your shoulders and go "there are too many variables to understand it" because it doesn't help your cause conveying you are taking this as seriously as you should. You avoid difficult questions because they are inconvenient. I'll ask again. At what stage of the negotiation were you first told of the SPFL discussing things with Premier Sports and were you given a ballpark idea of the value of that deal to the club? How has this extra income altered your offer? The TV deal alone is £50m over 5 years. I guess it be made up of an equal fee per club and featured live money on top. I don't think it's wildly off mark to suggest we would look to earn £2.5-3m over those 5 years (All based on top flight status of course). Throw in the increased Euro money which could worst case be an extra £200k per season we're at £3.5m-4m <checks notes> DOUBLE what you are offering for HALF the club, ONE YEAR EARLIER. Oh and the WS on current funding levels would be sitting on £1.5m in the bank and £868k club loan fully intact. < bong> ....... that is either the penny dropping or the arse falling out of your argument. If some people as so enthused about what your skills and experience could bring to new revenue generation, the WS could bring Wild Sheep Sports in on a consultancy retainer and pay with it from their swollen funds to pick your brain. So, I feel like we're just talking past each other, but let me see if I can make my point better: (1) Over the history of fan-ownership, the Club has been more or less breakeven/slightly profitable, but dependent on player sales to accomplish this. (2) On any given year, there are a bunch of variables that would contribute to profitability: season ticket sales, player sales, place in the table, changing media rights deals, and so on. I have some visibility on this, but not enough visibility to know if the Club will be profitable on any given year. But that's actually true within the club, too, at this time in the year. It's something that I would obviously no better if I were "inside" the club, but I'm not. (3) On a macro level, regardless of changing rights deals (the new TV deal, the change to solidarity payments), it's true that the club is usually a little unprofitable or neutral. That's been the steady state. And it's also true that more clubs in the SPFL have increased their investment pool, which MAY put MFC at a competitive disadvantage over time (unless this capital is used poorly, which it could be). (4) To answer your question, the new media rights deals were never discussed with me, nor are player sales. From my point, I'm taking a very long view of the Club and I'm trying to understand what will happen to the SPFL and MFC over 10-20 years -- so I try not to let short-term changes impact my view (but this can be debated). On your consulting idea ... I don't know, it feels testy to me. I have ideas and think we collectively can help the Club grow. If you disagree, let's debate the ideas themselves, but I hope people on here see me as someone who's creative with a skillset that could help the Club (beyond just being capital). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 6 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said: (1) Over the history of fan-ownership, the Club has been more or less breakeven/slightly profitable, but dependent on player sales to accomplish this. We have a net profit of over 2 million pounds since the introduction of fan ownership as laid out by @capt_oats a while back. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 So new and imminent income streams of £800k or greater per season was not discussed with you as you look to be majority shareholder of the club. Can we start to get serious? I'll tell you why you're like a dog with a burst ball when it comes to Motherwell. You've seen a £20k BMW. The owner just wants it off his driveway, there's no way his kids and grandkids are getting it, he regards them as feckless bums. So he offers it to you for £10k and to justify this to the family he advises there's £8k of HP finance still attached, however, nobody can find the documentation. What's impressive, you get his kids to pay for the annual service and new tyres while you cover the petrol and insurance. The owner also let's you pay it up with a yearly venmo, so in reality end up paying £7k. You get the keys, only to find the car has been reclassified as a "classic" and will now appreciate value than depreciate. So yeah, the best £7k you've ever spent. And as already conveyed to you, roughly for a third of its true worth. And when you revalue that BMW it won't be for a penny under £25k. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy H Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 7 hours ago, steelman1991 said: I think he's in Germany. He is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 (edited) 53 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: We have a net profit of over 2 million pounds since the introduction of fan ownership as laid out by @capt_oats a while back. Aye, if by "slightly profitable" you mean two record profits in the entire history of the club that the current members of the Executive Board were doing cartwheels over and have been slapping themselves on the back about then sure...we've been "slightly profitable". Edited June 13 by capt_oats 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellwatcher Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 1 hour ago, Vietnam91 said: So new and imminent income streams of £800k or greater per season was not discussed with you as you look to be majority shareholder of the club. Can we start to get serious? I'll tell you why you're like a dog with a burst ball when it comes to Motherwell. You've seen a £20k BMW. The owner just wants it off his driveway, there's no way his kids and grandkids are getting it, he regards them as feckless bums. So he offers it to you for £10k and to justify this to the family he advises there's £8k of HP finance still attached, however, nobody can find the documentation. What's impressive, you get his kids to pay for the annual service and new tyres while you cover the petrol and insurance. The owner also let's you pay it up with a yearly venmo, so in reality end up paying £7k. You get the keys, only to find the car has been reclassified as a "classic" and will now appreciate value than depreciate. So yeah, the best £7k you've ever spent. And as already conveyed to you, roughly for a third of its true worth. And when you revalue that BMW it won't be for a penny under £25k. I think we should lock Vietnam91 and EB in a room together until they can sort this out. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 17 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said: I think we should lock Vietnam91 and EB in a room together until they can sort this out. Do you think we could remain civil face to face @Erik Barmack? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 13 Share Posted June 13 Are Barcelona signing Miller or not, then? 2 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.