Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[welldaft]

13 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

I think we should lock Vietnam91 and EB in a room together until they can sort this out.

There is an idea.

Picking up on EB latest post. I fully understand why new media deals were not discussed as I am not sure the SPFL would share that information before it actually was confirmed. And certainly not any value associated with such deals. That I kinda understand. 

Player deals completely baffles me. Again you may understand why Bair was not mentioned but then his goalscoring run must have coincided with these discussions. As for Lennon Miller. No-one knows exactly how that will turn out. But with a fair wind we could expect a similar transfer fee to D Turnbull or near about. That could be as much as £2-3m hopefully more. That is an asset and an asset with a considerable value. That money would ultimately affect the valuation of the club even 4-6 years down the line. 

[StAndrew7]

13 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Are Barcelona signing Miller or not, then?

Depends, everyone and their dug is verified on the artist formerly known as Twitter these days.

If he is, £5m up front with a 20% sell on clause and other add-ons please, then this shit show can all be put to bed; McMahon gets thrown out along with his cronies, without so much as a thank you and the club can start afresh.

[standupforthemotherwell]

Playing devil's advocate, I don't agree that the value of players should be included within the value of the club. There is a chance any high value player could have a career ending injury before they are able to be sold or even for long enough for their contract to run out.

It seems pretty standard from an accounting perspective for the value to be considered as the purchase cost of the player which is then depreciated over the life of their initial contract. It essentially means the team is close to worthless from a valuation perspective.

FWIW I voted to consider any deals which would take away WS control but only from the perspective that I didn't want to discount anything without seeing the whole picture. Would I be happy to give up majority ownership of the club for £50m up front and £20m cash injection a year? Absolutely. Would I be willing for 350k a year? No. 

If the proposal is adjusted in the well society's favour in a few key areas such as the percentage, I reckon the vote could pass.

[steelmen]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Depends, everyone and their dug is verified on the artist formerly known as Twitter these days.

If he is, £5m up front with a 20% sell on clause and other add-ons please, then this shit show can all be put to bed; McMahon gets thrown out along with his cronies, without so much as a thank you and the club can start afresh.

On throwing out McMahon, when is he leaving voluntarily? He did say he was standing down this summer, didn’t he?

 

hopefully when this proposal fails, he has to go and quickly. Which then begs the question how quickly can we replace the board? And let’s ensure it’s not an old pals act and is people with proper business / sports backgrounds.

 

[KirkySuperSub]

41 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

I think we should lock Vietnam91 and EB in a room together until they can sort this out.

Sky, the BBC and ITV should just sack it with these frivolous Sunak vs Starmer live debates...this is the match-up we need.

[CoF]

I think they'd kiss. 

[StAndrew7]

22 minutes ago, steelmen said:

On throwing out McMahon, when is he leaving voluntarily? He did say he was standing down this summer, didn’t he?

hopefully when this proposal fails, he has to go and quickly. Which then begs the question how quickly can we replace the board? And let’s ensure it’s not an old pals act and is people with proper business / sports backgrounds.

 

 

I'm not sure he's ever mentioned an actual date.

The way he spoke at the AGM it very much sounded like he wasn't even going to be taking part in any investment discussions; he said that in order to "ensure a good deal" that the club bring in external, independent financial consultants to go through it with a fine tooth comb... Or words to that effect.

Evidently he's done it himself with the rest of the Executive Board because Dickie has experience of counting bricks for a living and McMahon worked in corporate finance (I think). So y'know, they know (shite) figures when they see them.

Edited June 13 by StAndrew7

[Erik Barmack]

29 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Do you think we could remain civil face to face @Erik Barmack?

Of course!  

On SOL, I noticed that people are saying that I'm on here for the same reasons that politicians kiss babies -- to win votes.  Someone else suggested that I have an elite PR team communicating on my behalf, also for nefarious reasons.  Just to be clear, I'm on here to learn and to articulate what I think is interesting about the Club and our offer.  The way I think this should be done is by talking to people who care the most about the Club, and also the people who are the most negative about our offer, within reason.  (And yes, I am posting my own thoughts -- I don't think an intern would help much here.)

Nothing that @Vietnam91 has said is out of bounds, nor do I find it to be unhealthy.  I do get frustrated by the notion of intention -- I will repeat this until my face turns blue, there are far better ways to make money than through SPFL ownership.  Even the most cynical view of valuation has us a) jettisoned if we suck in two years and b) with an asset in six years that is very wonky and hard to sell (and we don't plan on selling ever).  Logic has to take you down a path that we're not doing it to make a quick buck, nor are we doing it to make a buck at all -- we're investing because we think we can improve the Club and that it would be a really, really interesting opportunity to participate in a community.  It's really not more complicated than that.

On the deal itself, I want to reiterate that this conversation has me rethinking certain points of our offer, which I hope to discuss shortly.  The changes that we make may still leave the people on this board unsatisfied, but I don't think anyone here can accuse me of not listening to fans and/or trying to understand different viewpoints.  Beyond that, if this collective project isn't meant to be, we'll know shortly -- but the one area that I do need to push back on is intentionality.  So I'm going to be super-clear here:

* Where we think our deal is unfair, and there's an opportunity to incorporate feedback, we'll do it.

* I don't mind being told that I'm wrong so long as we're all polite.

* I don't think we ( @Vietnam91 and others and I) will particularly bridge our differences on valuation, which is okay.  Valuation is quite subjective and I ultimately want us to go forward or not based on our collective view of what growth looks like.  I'm not trying to lobby here, it's just that we've done several rounds on what something that's very subjective could be worth, we all have our comps, and it's quite hard to persuade someone in life (and in this case) as to a complicated asset's inherent value.  I will say this, though -- there is a bit of belittling happening on a multi-million dollar investment, and for us, it's not an insignificant amount of money.  It's easy to tell someone to pay more, but for my family, it's also a significant investment and one that we take quite seriously.

* I don't think I give off a kiss-ass, selling votes vibe here, nor is it my goal.  So, just to be clear -- I'm not here to solicit votes, I'm here to get smarter and to make sure that I'm being thoughtful about the Club.  I realize that this forum is swinging way more to "no" than "yes," and if I wanted to lobby for the deal, there would be better places to do so.

* Also for clarity, a close vote with low turnout that leads to an investment from us and a pissed off fanbase is a terrible outcome for everyone.  There's no "fast one" that helps the Barmacks, TWS or MFC short-term (because we'd be jacked) or long-term (because we'd be isolated from the community that we want to be a part of).  Again, if we were trying to pull a fast one, we'd hope for the opposite.  Here, we want as many votes as possible, and as clear of a mandate (positive or negative) as possible.

So, yep, still here ... @Vietnam91, let's get on WhatsApp for old time's sake.

E

 

 

 

 

[StAndrew7]

10 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I'm not sure he's ever mentioned an actual date.

The way he spoke at the AGM it very much sounded like he wasn't even going to be taking part in any investment discussions; he said that in order to "ensure a good deal" that the club bring in external, independent financial consultants to go through it with a fine tooth comb... Or words to that effect.

Evidently he's done it himself with the rest of the Executive Board because Dickie has experience of counting bricks for a living and McMahon worked in corporate finance (I think). So y'know, they know (shite) figures when they see them.

 

Found this on the club site @steelmen

[standupforthemotherwell]

11 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

McMahon once helped run RBS into the ground and cost the taxpayer billions. So y'know, they know (shite) figures when they see them.

Pretty sure RBS was two other recently departed board members. McMahon's day job was with PwC then spending Tom Hunters money for a living

[StAndrew7]

Just now, standupforthemotherwell said:

Pretty sure RBS was two other recently departed board members. McMahon's day job was with PwC then spending Tom Hunters money for a living

Aye I realised that and edited my post, got my directors mixed up!

[Handsome_Devil]

39 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said:

If the proposal is adjusted in the well society's favour in a few key areas such as the percentage, I reckon the vote could pass.

Mmm. That was certainly my preference too but I suspect EB will have absolutely no interest in such a deal. Time will tell.

It is not a coincidence EB and the EB sat down for months and concluded this deal - eliminating the Society - was what would be proposed. There's literally nothing EB has suggested in his ideas for the club he couldn't do with a minority stake and they could easily have avoided this shitshow had they wished.

So the logical conclusion is that ending fan ownership isn't an odd quirk of a couple of percentage points but the key aspect behind it, while EB picks up the club for a song.

Which means he won't be taking a revised 51-29-20 arrangement, certainly not without some absolutely comical kickers attached anyway. And that's fine - we were solid without him before and we'll be solid without him when he trundles off.

Edited June 13 by Handsome_Devil

[rowsdower]

@Erik Barmackcan you elaborate on some of the ideas you have for growing the club, and what aspects of the club you see as a unique investment opportunity for investors/collaborators? I believe that we do a horrible job at promoting ourselves, and this is a failing  of scottish football in general, so I'm curious as to how you'd approach that.

Not so much interested in how they'd work for us, but I'd love to see how quickly St Mirren start doing it.

Edited June 13 by rowsdower

[Alanos]

51 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

On SOL, I noticed that people are saying that I'm on here for the same reasons that politicians kiss babies -- to win votes.

Ach, they’re just jealous you are on here and not there. If you think we’re bad

tbf, I’m on SO too.

[Dosser1886]

EB being willing to engage with many on here who are majorly apprehensive and angry about how this process has been conducted to date, especially by the many vested interests on the board, is appreciated. 

But what keeps going through my head is why he is holding on in there when there is so little interest in what his current offer is? Does he enjoy the sport of a good debate or is the potential return for what he hopes to get out of this deal make him want to push it on as far and for as long as he can. 

Zero interest in anything that stops the fans having an overall majority and control over the future of our club.

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, Dosser1886 said:

EB being willing to engage with many on here who are majorly apprehensive and angry about how this process has been conducted to date, especially by the many vested interests on the board, is appreciated. 

But what keeps going through my head is why he is holding on in there when there is so little interest in what his current offer is? Does he enjoy the sport of a good debate or is the potential return for what he hopes to get out of this deal make him want to push it on as far and for as long as he can. 

Zero interest in anything that stops the fans having an overall majority and control over the future of our club.

 

So far he has said he might get us £150K from a tv series deal.

I thought he would at least try and explain how he was going to add value to the club. What AI means in his statement? What are new frontiers in social media? Is he opening a Motherwell account on Snapchat.

Like wtf does this mean

Quote

This includes optimizing MFC’s engagement and innovation in digital realms.

 

[RandomGuy.]

11 minutes ago, Dosser1886 said:

Zero interest in anything that stops the fans having an overall majority and control over the future of our club.

I'm still confused about why this "plan"...

1 hour ago, Erik Barmack said:

nor are we doing it to make a buck at all -- we're investing because we think we can improve the Club and that it would be a really, really interesting opportunity to participate in a community.  It's really not more complicated than that.

... requires him having a majority % of the club, and massively diluting the fans % of the club?

9 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

What AI means in his statement? What are new frontiers in social media?

 

https://substack.com/home/post/p-144739931

[Ill Ray]

Vietnam gonna be a cult hero in a filler 5th episode to break up the pace with the next episode being us winning the league cup.  

[rowsdower]

I created a song about us winning the champions league with Ai https://suno.com/song/262dce14-fcd8-4b2d-9212-246b8befa624

[David1979]

25 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

Just to be clear, I'm on here to learn and to articulate what I think is interesting about the Club and our offer. 

Awesome. Let me ask a few quick ones then;

You talk about "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects." Sounds great. Let's hear some details. What are these "long-term strategic projects" you speak of? What specific infrastructure projects are you interested in implementing within the club? How do your proposed projects align with our current business strategy and the goals of the current majority ownership? What are your expectations for the return on investment on these projects, and over what period? How do you measure the success of infrastructure and long-term strategic projects?

And importantly, can you provide examples of similar investments you have made in the past? What were the outcomes of those investments, and what lessons were learned? What risks do you foresee with these projects, and how do you plan to mitigate them? Have you identified any potential challenges in the implementation of these projects?

You also speak about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence." Again, sounds great.

I have a few questions. Could you elaborate on the specific strategies you envision for boosting broadcasting revenue and the markets or platforms you think we should focus on? Regarding AI, which areas of our business do you believe would benefit most, and what examples of AI solutions do you have in mind? As you'll no doubt know, AI comes in many forms and has many uses. I'd also like to know more about your experience with implementing these technologies. Lastly, could you outline the metrics for success, potential risks, and the proposed timeline for achieving key milestones?

Additionally, what types of investors are you targeting, and how do you plan to attract them? I don't expect you to name the additional investors you speak of, but let's hear more about them. You can surely provide some insight?

Firstly, what types of investors (e.g., venture capitalists, angel investors, strategic partners) are you targeting, and why do you believe they are a good fit for our club? Do you have a network of potential investors that you plan to approach, and can you share some details that highlight their relevance to our industry? Regarding the evaluation process, what criteria will you use to select potential investors, and are there specific qualities or conditions you are looking for? How do you plan to present our business to attract these investors? What key points and aspects of our business will you highlight in any pitch?

Also, what are your expectations regarding the timeline for securing additional investment, and how long do you anticipate the process will take from initial contact to securing funds? What range of investment amounts are you seeking from these investors, and are there specific terms or conditions you intend to propose? Can you provide examples of previous successful fundraising efforts you have been involved in, and what strategies did you use? How do you see your role in the implementation of the fundraising strategy, and will you be actively involved in negotiations and closing deals? How will you manage any risks associated with bringing on new investors, and what steps will you take to ensure that new investments align with our business goals and values? Lastly, what kind of support and value-add do you expect these investors to bring beyond just capital, and are there specific areas where they can contribute to our growth and success?

I know that you can't really divulge much of this information on a public forum, and I'm sure that our executive Board has already pressed you on virtually all of the above during their due diligence before even entertaining your proposal as serious and worth their time.

So, I'm guessing you've probably answered all of my questions, in detail, and I'm sure that the Society Board and wider membership will receive an abbreviated version of these answers, at the very least, before we vote.

After all, it would be rather silly to expect us to vote on accepting a proposal that sees us being asked to invest £1.35 million over six years, which would bizarrely result in a reduction of our shareholding by 25% alongside a requirement to write off 50% of our club loan, amounting to £434,000. I'm sure you recognise that this loan represents funds contributed by fans—many of whom are pensioners and others of limited means—who entrusted their money to the Society in good faith.

You're asking the Society board to effectively approve the cancellation of those hard-earned donations and contributions.

You mention that you follow politics closely, as do I. I'm sure you're as well aware as I am that a government attempting such a manoeuvre with a substantial amount of public funds would rightly face severe criticism for it.

All of this in exchange for you investing £1.95 million over six years, which would grant you a total of 49% ownership, starting with an initial 8% stake for a mere £300,000. I can kind of understand why you're so interested in pushing ahead with this deal.