Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[camer0n_mcd]

The only way I can really see a documentary series on Motherwell working is if we're so bad it's funny 'Sunderland 'til I die' style.

The two main reasons in my opinion that the Welcome to Wrexham stuff has worked is that a) They have 2 Hollywood a-listers owning the club (b) They're having millions and millions of pounds pumped in and are fighting for league titles/promotion. We wouldn't have either of them, realistically who's going to go out their way to watch a documentary on a team that's aim is to be 5th or 6th out of 12?

 

Or maybe I'm just a cynic...

[Ill Ray]

7 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

The only way I can really see a documentary series on Motherwell working is if we're so bad it's funny 'Sunderland 'til I die' style.

The two main reasons in my opinion that the Welcome to Wrexham stuff has worked is that a) They have 2 Hollywood a-listers owning the club (b) They're having millions and millions of pounds pumped in and are fighting for league titles/promotion. We wouldn't have either of them, realistically who's going to go out their way to watch a documentary on a team that's aim is to be 5th or 6th out of 12?

 

Or maybe I'm just a cynic...

Nah, you’re spot on mate, think the Americans are fascinated with the pyramid because they don’t have that as well, then promotion is tangible for Wrexham. 
 

We’ve got a much heavier ceiling and getting from say 9th to 4th in a 12 team league isn’t that much of a fairytale and harder to sell. Just would be more difficult to make that exciting, I personally haven’t been overly excited with a season since the cup finals under Robbo so would be difficult to sell that to an outsider. 
 

In the Wrexham doc I like the stuff about the players and their families I’m sure we could do that well too and plenty of personalities in the crowd so that could be at least some content. Just in terms of our small league with the limitations and monopoly at the top it’s  harder to sell a dream with that tbh. 

[Vietnam91]

On 22/02/2024 at 18:25, Vietnam91 said:

If anyone is inclined, Amy Irons interviewed Reynolds middle man and he outlines why Scottish teams were not attractive when they were looking. Which makes me wonder what the "streamer" sees unless he is naive to the reality that Humphrey as a native directed Reynolds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0gngn4s 17m20s on

The rub is you have to listen to Levein drone.

I suppose the surprise for me was the backgrounds of the two parties as cited. I can fully understand a City Group model having clubs in different leagues to effectively act as local scouting systems and interchange players. With nobody until Bournemouth recently doing that up here and with Brexit a reality I would have thought it would be a good fit especially with a low relative buy-in for English money.

Humphrey Ker the Executive Director and go between for Reynolds and McElhenney advises why they ruled out Scotland, citing Arbroath as that was the team supported by Ker's roommate at Edinburgh uni.

17m 20s in the link

[KirkySuperSub]

1 hour ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Obviously in a vacuum the £300k p/a etc would be welcome if nothing else but the stuff about AI, celebrities, and international fans really just sounds gimmicky at best.

As one who had first hand experience of this infamous, global-reaching event, I can't help being reminded of it through this whole bizarre saga...

Can we get some Oompa Loompa's in Well tops...?!

[Erik Barmack]

2 hours ago, David1979 said:

What he's proposed sounds interesting to me. Could it work? Possibly. However, I wouldn't stake our future on it.

Barmack's proposal could be integrated into a deal where he provides a certain amount of capital each year in exchange for the opportunity to work with us as a testing ground. We could then arrange for him to receive a substantial return if his initiatives prove successful—something more incentive-driven, perhaps? There's a lot of different ways that could be approached.

But losing fan ownership over it? Absolutely insane.

Hey, All --

I just wanted to clarify a few points:

What we've proposed, strategically, isn't all that "tech-bro-y".  To condense it, it would be as follows:

    (1) We think the Club can grow through smart media creation and media tie-ins.

    (2) We think that the Club could be more global in its scope and ambition.

    (3) We think that the Club could leverage tech platforms to improve customer-retention, communications, and upsells.

    (4) We think that we would be decent at communicating with key stakeholders and would work hard.

    (5) We think that capital could help with other ways that would help solidify the Club and/or make the Club grow.

 I think we have a reasonable track record that would support us being decent at these initiatives, especially if done in conjunction with Brian and TWS Board (and yes, engaged fans on this board, too).  But nothing in 1-5 precludes a bunch of other ways that the Club could and should grow.  I'm as excited about Brian's ideas and TWS's ideas as our own.   Our goal is to marry what we're decent at, with capital, and the thoughts of Brian/TWS.

Nowhere do we believe that we should pursue quick fixes, huge boom/bust player acquisition cycles, AI for the sake of AI, and celebrities.  Almost all of what we're proposing would require very hard work (even making a docu-series is quite labor intensive) and there's no easy solve here.  And we don't believe that there's some quick flip of a business, nor are we really interested in thinking that way.  The claims of ulterior motives don't align with the idea that a) the SPFL is historically not a place where anyone makes "easy money" and b) our desire to be engaged in this community and invest in a way that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to extract any value short-term.

 We do think that the Club should be fan-owned, and understand that what we proposed doesn't 100% fit that based, frankly, on the feedback from TWS Board and this message board.  That should be changed.  On that note, our goal isn't to have a flawless approach to MFC -- it's to engage, improve and communicate when we've missed the mark.  I believe an update will be going out Monday, and I hope that this update aligns with many of the conversations we've had here.

E

Edited June 15 by Erik Barmack

[Erik Barmack]

1 hour ago, KirkySuperSub said:

As one who had first hand experience of this infamous, global-reaching event, I can't help being reminded of it through this whole bizarre saga...

Can we get some Oompa Loompa's in Well tops...?!

This is our Halloween costume for the upcoming year.

[David1979]

5 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

Hey, All --

I just wanted to clarify a few points:

What we've proposed, strategically, isn't all that "tech-bro-y".  To condense it, it would be as follows:

    (1) We think the Club can grow through clever media creation and media tie-ins.

    (2) We think that the Club could be more global in its scope and ambition.

    (3) We think that the Club could leverage tech platforms to improve customer-retention, communications, and upsells.

    (4) We think that we would be decent at communicating with key stakeholders and would work hard.

    (5) We think that capital could help with other ways that would help solidify the Club and/or make the Club grow.

 I think we have a reasonable track record that would support us being decent at these initiatives, especially if done in conjunction with Brian and TWS Board (and yes, engaged fans on this board, too).  But nothing in 1-5 precludes a bunch of other ways that the Club could and should grow.  I'm as excited about Brian's ideas and TWS's ideas as our own.   Our goal is to marry what we're decent at, with capital, and the thoughts of Brian/TWS.

Nowhere do we believe that we should pursue quick fixes, huge boom/bust player acquisition cycles, AI for the sake of AI.  And we don't believe that there's some quick flip of a business, nor are we really interested in thinking that way.  The claims of ulterior motives don't align with the idea that a) the SPFL is historically not a place where anyone makes "easy money" and b) our desire to be engaged in this community and invest in a way that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to extract any value short-term.

 We do think that the Club should be fan-owned, and understand that what we proposed doesn't 100% fit that based, frankly, on the feedback from TWS Board and this message board.  That should be changed.  On that note, our goal isn't to have a flawless approach to MFC -- it's to engage, improve and communicate when we've missed the mark.  I believe an update will be going out Monday, and I hope that this update aligns with many of the conversations we've had here.

E

So, to summarise what you're saying, you believe the club can grow by creating clever media content and expanding globally. You see potential in using technology to improve how the club connects with fans and makes more money.  You believe in the importance of good communication with fans and the club's board. you think investing money can help stabilise and grow the club, and you want to collaborate closely with Brian and the Well Society Board, valuing their ideas alongside your own.

You must forgive me, but that's stating the obvious. We didn't really need you to tell us all of that. I think pretty much every fan of every club in the country could come up with that assessment.

What we really need to know is, how are you going to do this? 

If you showed up on Dragons Den with that pitch, you'd very likely be sent packing. In fact, you might not even make it to the show proper. That pitch could very well be relegated to the BBC Online blooper reel.

Where are the actual plans? 

You mention your reasonable track record? Can you provide specific examples of media tie-ins and clever media creations that have successfully enhanced global visibility for other sports entities or brands you've been involved with? 

Can you outline a previous experience where your communication strategies positively impacted stakeholder relations in a similar organisational context? 

Are there instances where your investment in sports organisations or related ventures resulted in sustainable growth without resorting to quick fixes or boom/bust cycles?

It would be beneficial for you to provide specific case studies or examples where your proposed strategies (media enhancements, global expansion, tech platform integration, etc.) have been successfully implemented in sports or similar industries.

Beyond media and tech initiatives, how do you envision deploying capital to solidify and grow the club? Are there specific areas of investment or projects you want to prioritise?

And then we come to fan ownership, which is the major hurdle for your plan as it stands. You don't seem to have a grasp on what fan ownership actually means. It doesn't mean the people who own the shares are fans of the club. Otherwise, literally millions of football clubs would be considered "fan owned", wouldn't they?

Are there any shareholders in any football club who would categorise themselves as not fans of the club? Even you, who probably never knew who Motherwell was this time last year, can now be considered "a fan."

Under your definition, you owning 49% and the Society holding 46% would constitute the club being "95% fan owned."

No, fan ownership isn't that. And that's not just the opinion of the Well Society and people on this forum. You'd get literally the exact same response from any fan group at any football club in Europe. Your definition is plain wrong, and that's okay. No one expects you to get it all correct. You've admitted you're here to learn and grow with us, so that's what we can do. We move on.

But, that leaves me with the following questions...

How do you reconcile your proposal with the principles of fan ownership, especially considering the adjustments needed to align with the feedback from the Well Society Board?

Can you provide assurances or examples where your involvement in community-focused initiatives within sports organizations has demonstrated a commitment to long-term, sustainable growth rather than short-term gains?

And perhaps most importantly, you mentioned there will be an update on Monday. Who have you been speaking to for this update to happen? I trust it’s been with the Well Society? As it stands, the club’s executive board includes a Chairman whom many fans lack confidence in and who is on his way out. Additionally, Tom Feely and Douglas Dickie on the board have lost credibility with much of the fan base. In fact, one of them shouldn’t even hold a position on the board, having resigned from the entity that owns that seat, while the other should very likely have tended his resignation by this point.

So, could you clarify who you've been updating and negotiating with? Can you confirm it’s been directly with the Well Society board?

Look, I understand it may appear that you're being fired at from all angles here, but honestly, this isn't personal. I don't know you. Not many of us do, I'd wager. You are probably a really good guy. But, this is business. And you understand how business works. I'm sure you'd have similar questions if this were your local sports team or an organisation you had an emotional attachment to.

The wider fan base and the Well Society simply need to gain a clearer understanding of your strategic vision, your approach to implementing these initiatives, and the potential benefits and challenges associated with your proposals. This will help ensure alignment with the club’s long-term goals and values while maximizing the potential for sustainable growth and community engagement.

[Erik Barmack]

53 minutes ago, David1979 said:

So, to summarise what you're saying, you believe the club can grow by creating clever media content and expanding globally. You see potential in using technology to improve how the club connects with fans and makes more money.  You believe in the importance of good communication with fans and the club's board. you think investing money can help stabilise and grow the club, and you want to collaborate closely with Brian and the Well Society Board, valuing their ideas alongside your own.

You must forgive me, but that's stating the obvious. We didn't really need you to tell us all of that. I think pretty much every fan of every club in the country could come up with that assessment.

What we really need to know is, how are you going to do this? 

If you showed up on Dragons Den with that pitch, you'd very likely be sent packing. In fact, you might not even make it to the show proper. That pitch could very well be relegated to the BBC Online blooper reel.

Where are the actual plans? 

You mention your reasonable track record? Can you provide specific examples of media tie-ins and clever media creations that have successfully enhanced global visibility for other sports entities or brands you've been involved with? 

Can you outline a previous experience where your communication strategies positively impacted stakeholder relations in a similar organisational context? 

Are there instances where your investment in sports organisations or related ventures resulted in sustainable growth without resorting to quick fixes or boom/bust cycles?

It would be beneficial for you to provide specific case studies or examples where your proposed strategies (media enhancements, global expansion, tech platform integration, etc.) have been successfully implemented in sports or similar industries.

Beyond media and tech initiatives, how do you envision deploying capital to solidify and grow the club? Are there specific areas of investment or projects you want to prioritise?

And then we come to fan ownership, which is the major hurdle for your plan as it stands. You don't seem to have a grasp on what fan ownership actually means. It doesn't mean the people who own the shares are fans of the club. Otherwise, literally millions of football clubs would be considered "fan owned", wouldn't they?

Are there any shareholders in any football club who would categorise themselves as not fans of the club? Even you, who probably never knew who Motherwell was this time last year, can now be considered "a fan."

Under your definition, you owning 49% and the Society holding 46% would constitute the club being "95% fan owned."

No, fan ownership isn't that. And that's not just the opinion of the Well Society and people on this forum. You'd get literally the exact same response from any fan group at any football club in Europe. Your definition is plain wrong, and that's okay. No one expects you to get it all correct. You've admitted you're here to learn and grow with us, so that's what we can do. We move on.

But, that leaves me with the following questions...

How do you reconcile your proposal with the principles of fan ownership, especially considering the adjustments needed to align with the feedback from the Well Society Board?

Can you provide assurances or examples where your involvement in community-focused initiatives within sports organizations has demonstrated a commitment to long-term, sustainable growth rather than short-term gains?

And perhaps most importantly, you mentioned there will be an update on Monday. Who have you been speaking to for this update to happen? I trust it’s been with the Well Society? As it stands, the club’s executive board includes a Chairman whom many fans lack confidence in and who is on his way out. Additionally, Tom Feely and Douglas Dickie on the board have lost credibility with much of the fan base. In fact, one of them shouldn’t even hold a position on the board, having resigned from the entity that owns that seat, while the other should very likely have tended his resignation by this point.

So, could you clarify who you've been updating and negotiating with? Can you confirm it’s been directly with the Well Society board?

Look, I understand it may appear that you're being fired at from all angles here, but honestly, this isn't personal. I don't know you. Not many of us do, I'd wager. You are probably a really good guy. But, this is business. And you understand how business works. I'm sure you'd have similar questions if this were your local sports team or an organisation you had an emotional attachment to.

The wider fan base and the Well Society simply need to gain a clearer understanding of your strategic vision, your approach to implementing these initiatives, and the potential benefits and challenges associated with your proposals. This will help ensure alignment with the club’s long-term goals and values while maximizing the potential for sustainable growth and community engagement.

Hey, David, 

I don't feel like I'm getting it from all sides.  I think you're asking good questions, and I'll try to answer them concisely.  (I will say, on the Dragon's Den front, that answering questions on a message board is quite different than presenting a business plan.  For us a business plan would take months, and require way more input than we have right now.  I'm guessing we have 10% of the info we need, and the goal is to get a few more percentage points each day, but that's quite different than pitching something where you have all the info, and you've worked on the business for years -- all of which is to say, I'd ask you to consider the context of the medium we're on, and we're not claiming to have all the precise answers today.)

On my track record:

(1) I was an early and aggressive advocate of international content at Netflix, and started the group that did non-English originals.  This seems obvious as a growth area now, but it wasn't at the time, and it allowed us to work on shows like DARK, MONEY HEIST, SACRED GAMES and others, which fundamentally altered the trajectory of how we grew in international markets.

(2) I also advocated for sports content earlier, with lesser success, and specifically helped set up DRIVE TO SURVIVE with an old colleague from ESPN.  I think it's fair to say that this series contributed to renewed interest in F1.

(3) More recently, I was able to launch my own production company during a time when the market is contracting, and to make shows in the first three years of our existence in Scotland, Canada, the US, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, France, India, Japan, Spain, Sweden, and other countries not yet announced.  This isn't super-easy to do as a new business, and we've done it with limited resources.

(4) Prior to joining Netflix, I was employee #1 at one of the first fantasy sports companies online, and we were able to establish a profitable business with media partners and leagues from around the world.

Courtney, meanwhile, has worked at Google and Snap, and done lots on the operations side of tech that I think is relevant and interesting to MFC.  And taking what she's done with 1-4 above, I would say none of these are things that happened over the short-term.  They were all multi-year efforts that required persistence and some level of strategy.  Communication, in most of the context above, requires explaining to partners and/or stakeholders within a business why certain risks should be taken (a TV show is an inherent risk), and what success looks like (this is usually defined by user growth or engagement -- not exactly the same as a football club, but not entirely different, either).

On the specifics of club ownership, I cannot provide assurances that are specific because we've never attempted to invest in a club before.  On that level, the deal has to be right, and with protections in place to make sure that our interests are aligned with the interests of the club.  I do think running small businesses could be relevant, as is working in big media (Netflix) and for big sports (ESPN).  But that feeling should be balanced with experts (I think highly of Brian) and community advocates (I think highly of the WS Board, even when they disagree with me).

On fan ownership, I think your point is basically right, which is that we missed a layer in how we viewed fan ownership.  We need to adjust based on this feedback, which we'll do.  In this case, some of this thinking has been provided to people on the WS Board, as well as the Club.  I don't believe that we got it right.  So we have to change this piece.

As for other initiatives outside of media, I support the notion that capital should go to long-term improvements to the Club.  One would be a better CRM platform -- if you can't track user data, you can't improve your long-term relationships with customers over time.  Another would be seeing whether Fir Park could be used for more activities during the week, and whether the training facilities could have a better medium-term fix (this isn't my idea, but something that several stake-holders, including Brian and @Vietnam91, have shared, and one in which is an example where a little capital could lead to significant improvements). 

But if you accept my theory on its face, which is that our goal is to get the best ideas out here, then listing a bunch of initiatives runs against it.  In a previous note, I suggested 10 areas that I'd look into (just making sure you read that post), but at least 5 of those might be bad ideas.  Being more specific without discussions could make us sound smart (or quite dull), but it would run against the basic idea I have here, which is that we should be using our strengths to iterate and improve, and that the ideas need to be coming from multiple sources for us, collectively, to be fully growing the Club.

Taking off for a flight, so TBC.

 

 

 

Edited June 16 by Erik Barmack

[Well Fan]

Reverse think this whole scenario. 

You are a wealthy investor and propose putting money into a football club. The fans and fans collective (TWS) push back, with some even abusing you on social media. 

A. Do you walk away and say screw you!!!! 

B. Write countless messages persuading said fans to let you invest. 

He's hanging in there because of his potential gains only. He's a business man. 

Don't pull your pants down for anyone. 

 

I. M. O. 

 

 

Edited June 16 by Well Fan

[David1979]

50 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

I will say, on the Dragon's Den front, that answering questions on a message board is quite different than presenting a business plan.  For us a business plan would take months, and require way more input than we have right now.  I'm guessing we have 10% of the info we need, and the goal is to get a few more percentage points each day, but that's quite different than pitching something where you have all the info, and you've worked on the business for years -- all of which is to say, I'd ask you to consider the context of the medium we're on, and we're not claiming to have all the precise answers today.

Can I assume you have presented a detailed business plan to both the Well Society board and the club's Executive Board and simply don't wish to share it here?

Or are you saying you don't have a business plan at all at the moment? You mention having only 10% of the information you need. Surely, as an investor, you'd want to have all the necessary information before making an offer to purchase 49% of any company? Isn't that basic due diligence?

Are you essentially asking the Well Society to sell you a 49% shareholding, give up control of the club, commit future funds from its members without consulting them, and forgo almost half a million pounds owed to the Society by the club, based entirely on having only 10% of the information needed for a coherent plan?

I don't wish to sound harsh, but that approach seems incredibly haphazard to me.

1 hour ago, Erik Barmack said:

On my track record:

(1) I was an early and aggressive advocate of international content at Netflix, and started the group that did non-English originals.  This seems obvious as a growth area now, but it wasn't at the time, and it allowed us to work on shows like DARK, MONEY HEIST, SACRED GAMES and others, which fundamentally altered the trajectory of how we grew in international markets.

(2) I also advocated for sports content earlier, with lesser success, and specifically helped set up DRIVE TO SURVIVE with an old colleague from ESPN.  I think it's fair to say that this series contributed to renewed interest in F1.

(3) More recently, I was able to launch my own production company during a time when the market is contracting, and to make shows in the first three years of our existence in Scotland, Canada, the US, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, France, India, Japan, Spain, Sweden, and other countries not yet announced.  This isn't super-easy to do as a new business, and we've done it with limited resources.

(4) Prior to joining Netflix, I was employee #1 at one of the first fantasy sports companies online, and we were able to establish a profitable business with media partners and leagues from around the world.

Your work at Netflix showcases your ability to nurture compelling content. The success of "Drive to Survive" further highlights your capability to create engaging sports content. Similarly, the potential docuseries and other media initiatives you propose for Motherwell could greatly enhance the club's global visibility, brand recognition, and fan engagement, aligning well with our goal of reaching a broader audience and generating additional revenue streams.

However, the disparity between what you bring to the table and what you're requesting in return is quite significant, in my view.

For the Well Society to relinquish a controlling stake in the club, write off nearly half a million pounds of contributions from hard-working members, and essentially match the financial commitment you're proposing, it would necessitate an offer far more substantial than what is currently being presented.

I dare say such an offer would likely exceed your current scope. Please understand this isn't meant in a disparaging manner.

I believe there is potential for a deal, but there's absolutely no way you can expect to receive 49% control (or even close to it), ask the Society to increase contributions to the extent you have (without consulting them first, I believe), and ask them to forego nearly half a million pounds of contributors funds in the name of a "clean balance sheet."

3 hours ago, Erik Barmack said:

On the specifics of club ownership, I cannot provide assurances that are specific because we've never attempted to invest in a club before.

This is an immediate red flag for me, and by making this concession, while I appreciate your honesty, it simply isn't what I want to hear from someone who's asking for significant influence.

Essentially, you're acknowledging that you bring forward many good ideas, which may or may not succeed, and that you cannot provide assurances because you lack previous experience in this domain.

I'm sure you understand the implications of this?

However, I don't place the entire blame on you for this situation. Our executive board should have raised these concerns long before anything became public and either proposed to involve you in a more limited capacity suitable to your offer and experience level or respectfully declined. That responsibility lies with them, not you. They probably owe you an apology.

Motherwell Football Club simply cannot be your training ground. Perhaps a club lower down the hierarchy could be more appropriate, but we are a top-tier Premier League club. Our value runs into millions of pounds, and we have a history that dates back over 135 years. 

[David1979]

Also, separate from the above, you didn't answer this question. I think it's pretty important that we know exactly who you're talking to about a revised offer?

4 hours ago, David1979 said:

And perhaps most importantly, you mentioned there will be an update on Monday. Who have you been speaking to for this update to happen? I trust it’s been with the Well Society? As it stands, the club’s executive board includes a Chairman whom many fans lack confidence in and who is on his way out. Additionally, Tom Feely and Douglas Dickie on the board have lost credibility with much of the fan base. In fact, one of them shouldn’t even hold a position on the board, having resigned from the entity that owns that seat, while the other should very likely have tended his resignation by this point.

So, could you clarify who you've been updating and negotiating with? Can you confirm it’s been directly with the Well Society board?

 

[Handsome_Devil]

2 hours ago, David1979 said:

Also, separate from the above, you didn't answer this question. I think it's pretty important that we know exactly who you're talking to about a revised offer?

I don't think there's much doubt that'll be the soon to be former chairman, there's no reason (on my chain of thinking, which definitely includes some hops) for him to talk to anyone else.

[TheMighty]

Fundamental to all of this is trust.

Do we trust the Exec Board?

Do we trust Eric Barmack?

I’ll start by the saying the current deal will not get my yes vote. WS majority ownership needs to remain, balance at boardroom level needs addressed and so does the demanded WS contribution.

The current deal is too little for too much.

Whilst I don’t think this is a great deal currently neither do I think the Board (i.e. Jim McMahon) are doing anything other than what they think is right, or potentially right, for Motherwell FC. I don’t think there is a big conspiracy. A value in the deal has been identified and hope this week’s statement clarifies what this is considered to be. 
 

Trusting Eric is another matter. People are right to be sceptical. I’m still not sure if I am mighty impressed there has been long and lengthy direct contact with posters from here or if that should be an alarm bell. Most of what we have to go on is credibility from business success at Netflix and the other corporate entities mentioned. Personally the fact that there is no previous football club ownership is a good thing for me. If there was that would lessen any claim of a connection to Motherwell for me. I like that this is at least in part about taking a fresh and different approach to others (e.g. becoming a feeder club). It feels potentially modern.

I’ve been asking myself about motive and potential ulterior motive. It’s not clear to me what there is to gain on that front (I.e. I don’t see the quick buck to be made). Again I’m conflicted because on the one hand I’m mighty impressed with the negotiation skills on display and on the other conscious we are on the wrong end of the deal.

This has to be about a partnership. The deal needs to reflect that. I’m minded though that partnership is two way so fully expect the WS to need to contribute in every sense as well if this progresses. 

 

 

[Handsome_Devil]

3 minutes ago, TheMighty said:

I don’t think there is a big conspiracy.

...

I’ve been asking myself about motive and potential ulterior motive. It’s not clear to me what there is to gain on that front (I.e. I don’t see the quick buck to be made). 

I cannot stress enough this isn't a prediction, it's certainly not based on any insider knowledge and is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. But since you brought it up...

Erik running the club and selling it to a local consortium after 3-6 years ticks almost every box in the old search for motive and opportunity.

He can make money off his documentary and establish Wild Sheep's credibility for bigger clubs. He can hand the club back not only safely but it will have grown (nothing to do with him being good or bad, we know this will happen anyway).

The local businessmen can buy the club for an incredibly cheap amount and 'bring it back' to the community. They look like the good guys for doing this and don't have to worry about the perception of buying from the Society which Eric's deal conveniently neutered for them.

As part of the community aspect of their takeover, they'll 'revitalise' the Society by saying we paid to buy the club back, how about you fund the rainy day reserve again in exchange for some token participation?

Voila, the local guys get to wear their ties and run the club without the hassle of Society input but benefit from it offering the softest of overdrafts, project funding and so on.

Maybe it's a million miles off but to me it's not nearly as wild as some bloke from LA suddenly he deciding he wants to be the open-ended owner of Motherwell with no exit strategy and some of the other things being said in justification of the proposal.

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, TheMighty said:

Fundamental to all of this is trust.

Do we trust the Exec Board?

Do we trust Eric Barmack?

I’ll start by the saying the current deal will not get my yes vote. WS majority ownership needs to remain, balance at boardroom level needs addressed and so does the demanded WS contribution.

The current deal is too little for too much.

Whilst I don’t think this is a great deal currently neither do I think the Board (i.e. Jim McMahon) are doing anything other than what they think is right, or potentially right, for Motherwell FC. I don’t think there is a big conspiracy. A value in the deal has been identified and hope this week’s statement clarifies what this is considered to be. 

Do I trust the Exec Board? Frankly, no. I don't.

At this moment in time I don't trust them to make Good Decisions as, for whatever reason, we've seen them consistently make Bad Decisions for the past 2 years or so.

This is a board who "forgot" to announce that the First Team Manager had triggered a year extension to his contract and had to finally clarify this via public apology. It's a board who took a full calendar year to appoint a permanent CEO after Alan Burrows gave notice.

We don't need to re-litigate every Bad Decision but the long and the short of it is that this is objectively a Bad Deal that impacts in a way that is absolutely fucking miles from the "fundraising initiative" McMahon spoke about originally - and the Executive Board are apparently recommending it?

As @David1979 says above our Executive Board is hugely at fault here and tbqh I fully agree that they owe Mr. Barmack an apology because the way that they've carried themselves has been nothing short of embarrassing not to say completely disrespectful of the Well Society and the support who contribute to that.

If nothing else the shambles that has ensued post-Burrows has clarified who was actually running the club through the period of relative success that we've had as a fan-owned club that they've been taking credit for.

Edited June 16 by capt_oats

[eliphas]

18 minutes ago, TheMighty said:

Fundamental to all of this is trust.

Do we trust the Exec Board?

Do we trust Eric Barmack?

I’ll start by the saying the current deal will not get my yes vote. WS majority ownership needs to remain, balance at boardroom level needs addressed and so does the demanded WS contribution.

The current deal is too little for too much.

Whilst I don’t think this is a great deal currently neither do I think the Board (i.e. Jim McMahon) are doing anything other than what they think is right, or potentially right, for Motherwell FC. I don’t think there is a big conspiracy. A value in the deal has been identified and hope this week’s statement clarifies what this is considered to be. 
 

Trusting Eric is another matter. People are right to be sceptical. I’m still not sure if I am mighty impressed there has been long and lengthy direct contact with posters from here or if that should be an alarm bell. Most of what we have to go on is credibility from business success at Netflix and the other corporate entities mentioned. Personally the fact that there is no previous football club ownership is a good thing for me. If there was that would lessen any claim of a connection to Motherwell for me. I like that this is at least in part about taking a fresh and different approach to others (e.g. becoming a feeder club). It feels potentially modern.

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve been asking myself about motive and potential ulterior motive. It’s not clear to me what there is to gain on that front (I.e. I don’t see the quick buck to be made). Again I’m conflicted because on the one hand I’m mighty impressed with the negotiation skills on display and on the other conscious we are on the wrong end of the deal.

This has to be about a partnership. The deal needs to reflect that. I’m minded though that partnership is two way so fully expect the WS to need to contribute in every sense as well if this progresses. 

 

 

Agree with everything said there and it probably nails everything I've tried to write countless times the last week or so. 

[eliphas]

3 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

I cannot stress enough this isn't a prediction, it's certainly not based on any insider knowledge and is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. But since you brought it up...

Erik running the club and selling it to a local consortium after 3-6 years ticks almost every box in the old search for motive and opportunity.

He can make money off his documentary and establish Wild Sheep's credibility for bigger clubs. He can hand the club back not only safely but it will have grown (nothing to do with him being good or bad, we know this will happen anyway).

The local businessmen can buy the club for an incredibly cheap amount and 'bring it back' to the community. They look like the good guys for doing this and don't have to worry about the perception of buying from the Society which Eric's deal conveniently neutered for them.

As part of the community aspect of their takeover, they'll 'revitalise' the Society by saying we paid to buy the club back, how about you fund the rainy day reserve again in exchange for some token participation?

Voila, the local guys get to wear their ties and run the club without the hassle of Society input but benefit from it offering the softest of overdrafts, project funding and so on.

Maybe it's a million miles off but to me it's not nearly as wild as some bloke from LA suddenly he deciding he wants to be the open-ended owner of Motherwell with no exit strategy and some of the other things being said in justification of the proposal.

I'blve agreed with a lot of what you've said on this whole thing but I'm not sure on that one. 

Edited June 16 by eliphas

[Handsome_Devil]

Just now, eliphas said:

I'be agreed with a lot of what you've said on this whole thing but I'm not sure on that one. 

Aye, me neither tbf.

But even ignoring the massively dubious valuation from that side of the negotiation, I simply don't believe EB would lob himself into a project like this the fluffy ideas he's posted and a timescale of 'we'll see how it goes'. It just seems totally unrealistic.

[EK2DK]

I should start by saying that this will go down as one of the most bizarre weeks I’ve experienced as a Motherwell fan. 
 

There are a few points in recent posts which I’d like to echo, from capt. Oats, David and Handsome Devil. 
 

Firstly, I agree that the Executive Board owe Erik, his advisors, TWS (TM) and Motherwell supporters an apology. 

Whilst I don’t believe Erik’s offer is one of malice or ill intent, he’s trying to get as good a deal for himself as he can, which he’s entitled to do. However, the board are in the process of selling the club down the river with quite frankly woeful negotiations and valuations.

There is absolutely no way that an institutional business with 140 years of history should be sold off to any investor without not only due diligence but also a detailed and meaningful business plan presented to the shareholders. 

Secondly, Erik himself as said he has only 10% of what’s needed to form a meaningful plan. Erik, that is your responsibility to ask that and your responsibility to present that to the 
Shareholders prior to any deal. As it stands, we’ve got some bullet points that with all due respect, I’d expect from anybody freshly graduating with a masters degree in marketing to bring to the table. 
There is absolutely no value to what you have presented. 
You do not plan meaningful investment to bring competitive advantage to the club, there are no cash injections of substance and no discussions regarding your own cash reserves should crisis hit. Your proposal is utterly abhorrent in asking people with cultural and familial ties to relinquish control of a club that has probably been one steady beacon in an area which has underwent deprivation and desolation for decades, to be turned into an investment vehicle and lightly funded experiment.
There is no risk to you in this deal, but there is massive risk to the fans and the club. You can walk away but the supporters cannot or will  not but in an era and area where money has always been traditionally challenging, fans who have put their hands in their pockets month after month are being asked to wipe off that investment on a wing and a prayer that you might be able to do some decent media deals.

I have seen nothing to suggest that you bring any meaningful value to Motherwell football club and its future. 

Yes, the society needs to now really push on and provide strategic direction and yes, outside investment and extra financing should always be welcome but 50+1 is a redline, as are valuations which require the dilution of society shares below that of what the society has acquired them for. 

Quite frankly, this all smacks of absolutely dreadful governance and should see the board removed from the club, in its entirety.

Edited June 16 by EK2DK

[RandomGuy.]

FWIW this is Caledonian Braves pitch, which seems almost exactly what yer man is trying to rip off.

https://wefunder.com/cbfc

They finished 12th in the Lowland League last season, below Cowdenbeath and Stirling University. 

Votes are held, with most voters foreign based "investors", to make decisions like name/crest/colours.

The "£1m+" raised is over 5 years+