Wellmental21 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 25 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: Grant Russell QT'ing Speedie - the last line saying we need new board is very interesting. Prob koz they never gave him the chief exec job 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real-name-hidden Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 39 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: Would firmly have my self in the anti-Barmack camp but I think it would be wrong to not allow members a vote on a proposal that would have a huge impact on both the club and the Society. I might end up disagreeing with the outcome of the cote but that's democracy I literally couldn’t agree more with your comment about it being a democracy but to be a democracy; facts, caveats, intentions and all other applicable information needs to be readily available, easily explained to all and not hidden in a shroud of mystery and innuendos that take 40 pages of a back and forth exchange in an echo-chamber of the internet (here and SOL) for the truth to become apparent. So it’s not a democracy, it’s individuals pushing their narrative in the hope people won’t pay close enough attention to notice it. I could picture JM and co in their meetings with EB telling him, to the effect of “it won’t matter, they’re too stupid to notice that” as if TWS are beneath them. EB is a wolf in sheep’s clothing with regards the deal on the table. Shut it down. Edited June 18 by real-name-hidden 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 8 minutes ago, real-name-hidden said: Individuals pushing their narrative in the hope people won’t pay close enough attention to notice it. I mean, that pretty much perfectly sums up politics in most countries at the moment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Confirmation from his club that Stuparević is away. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 25 minutes ago, capt_oats said: Confirmation from his club that Stuparević is away. Keeper too? Wonder if he’s any good 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 25 minutes ago, steelmen said: Keeper too? Wonder if he’s any good Contracted to Empoli by the looks of it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 11 minutes ago, Richie said: Contracted to Empoli by the looks of it If only we had that Ben Heneghan money a few weeks back #gutted 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowsdower Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Congrats to Ben H for achieving immortality as a unit of measurement. 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie McSquackle Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 3 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: And if it goes to a vote and there is a slim margin one way or another? Or it is widely rejected and they still lose their shit? I'm having a meltdown right now! Best to do what you believe is right. And the Well Society Board have already said rejecting this plan is right, I'm concerned this whole episode will be divisive and the WS will be weakened by it either way. Hopefully not, but there's always going to be some people voting for the losing option who may decide they don't want to continue with financial contributions to something they disagree with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molotov Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 2 hours ago, real-name-hidden said: EB is a wolf in sheep’s clothing with regards the deal on the table. Very apt given the Wild Sheep name. Send this wee lamb north to a slaughterhouse in Aberdeen. Don’t let these characters anywhere near your club. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Been keeping my eye on the club statement to make sure there's no slipped in amendments. Mainly because you get so annoyed before you're even out the first paragraph, one bit I read again and is really misleading is: 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. Starting off with as others have conveyed the disparaging "Rainy Day Money" and "balancing the books" comments. The first demeans over £2m raised by kids, pensioners and a lot of people of humble means. It's a strategic reserve that the outgoing chairman called for to the tune of £868k. The later is disingenuous when looking at the facts of our financial reporting, again evidence by others.. In the last 20 years we've had a 10th and an 11th, our cup performances in winnable ties is below where it should be. However, the premise that feeding WS funds into club operational budgets mean its less likely we get dragged into relegation is a nonsense. In the past 10 years we've seen 4 teams with bigger (often substantial) player budgets drop into the Championship in Hearts, Hibs, Dundee United and Killie, some more than once. Money does not equate to success, it helps but good recruitment and sound coaching can always outperform cash. A harmonious club with everyone seemingly working for a common goal helps too. I hope everyone has also noticed the narrative has changed from plugging the funding gap in a poor season (not mentioned at all) to the goalposts being moved to now the peril being £3.5m relegation. When one issue was now fixed as of a fortnight ago, may as well move onto the next stop on the 'fear' train. Onto point 2, the synopsis is the WS raises some money but it is not enough, bless them though. To put revenue generation purely on the WS and not mention improving the existing commercial streams (ticketing, advertising, hospitality, function hire, etc.) can only be done to stick the knife in further. However, this is a not a new tactic. I always understood the WS were in charge of growing the reserve (which they’ve kinda done successfully) and giving direction to the club board. They are for want of a better word 'stewards', with protection and sustainability as their core. When it comes to direction, the WS is tasked to appoint the right people to do the day to day work of the club and empower them. Rubber stamping initiatives, long term plans and countenancing the release of funds with the aim to accumulate a greater return if the right business case is made for them. Now the WS are re-tasked to increase their revenue by the outgoing chairman as an additional club revenue stream. Why the WS are being held to a higher financial standard than he has been is a question we should all be asking. For example, he conveyed a long standing gap in our finances and did little on the surface to address it (unless the video released in January counts as tangible attempt - seeing where we are today, it has been an abject failure). In fact he admitted "we dropped the ball on that". I can see no evidence of any revenue stream particular to him or his actions and I see none that ceases when he leaves. Finally, considering that the club board and chairman serve at the behest and indulgence of the majority shareholder this is both just plain weird and manifestly egregious. As for a vote, I'd say a vote is earned by bringing a valid and fair offer to the table. It should not be expected and not dictated either to the Well Society. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 The vagueness of everything from the Club Executive Board since this saga started is alarming. Their communication is absolutely appalling and at it's hard to not start thinking it's designed to be that way. Chat and statements suggest even the Well Society doesn't know what the executive board's thinking is, only seeing heads of terms after they've been agreed as just one example of this. In no other walk of life would a majority shareholder be actively kept out of the loop in this way, the executive board are a disgrace and need binned yesterday. On the offer itself, not only does it undervalue the club and the money people have paid into the WS, it's shrouded in so much mystery and hypothetic situations, all while the Well Society are being told they have to have a full plan and strategy for McMahon and Co. to attempt to undermine and pick apart, with no intention of ever giving it any support. On other investors, I get sometimes they might come along further down the line, but EB's messages to @Vietnam91 appeared to suggest more investors, of which there was past speculation on here about, were ready to come on board. Why is that not been formalised in the offer? To use the Wrexham example again, Rob McElhenney wanted to buy them, knew he needed more money to invest to brought in Ryan Reynolds and it was all public and part of the deal. That may be overly simplifying it, but surely we want full transparency? So there are more investors wanting involved or is it just hoped there will be? As I said previously, none of us know EB so I certainly cannot comment or speculate on his intentions, but this offer is all wrong. None of it works for Motherwell Football Club. That's not to say future offers, from the Barmacks and their fellow investors, or from somewhere else, won't be right but this one certainly isn't it. We shouldn't allow our club and fans to be treated like this and just accept an offer because it's there. We pish ourselves laughing at bigger clubs like Hibs and Aberdeen who, at times, appear to have investors trying to play real life football manager, let's be sure we don't go down that route. Fans of other clubs would give a lot to have control of their club, they've even been on here saying that, let's aim to get the most out of a reinvigorated fan ownership model. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 4 minutes ago, MurrayWell said: The vagueness of everything from the Club Executive Board since this saga started is alarming. Their communication is absolutely appalling and at it's hard to not start thinking it's designed to be that way. Chat and statements suggest even the Well Society doesn't know what the executive board's thinking is, only seeing heads of terms after they've been agreed as just one example of this. In no other walk of life would a majority shareholder be actively kept out of the loop in this way, the executive board are a disgrace and need binned yesterday. On the offer itself, not only does it undervalue the club and the money people have paid into the WS, it's shrouded in so much mystery and hypothetic situations, all while the Well Society are being told they have to have a full plan and strategy for McMahon and Co. to attempt to undermine and pick apart, with no intention of ever giving it any support. On other investors, I get sometimes they might come along further down the line, but EB's messages to @Vietnam91 appeared to suggest more investors, of which there was past speculation on here about, were ready to come on board. Why is that not been formalised in the offer? To use the Wrexham example again, Rob McElhenney wanted to buy them, knew he needed more money to invest to brought in Ryan Reynolds and it was all public and part of the deal. That may be overly simplifying it, but surely we want full transparency? So there are more investors wanting involved or is it just hoped there will be? As I said previously, none of us know EB so I certainly cannot comment or speculate on his intentions, but this offer is all wrong. None of it works for Motherwell Football Club. That's not to say future offers, from the Barmacks and their fellow investors, or from somewhere else, won't be right but this one certainly isn't it. We shouldn't allow our club and fans to be treated like this and just accept an offer because it's there. We pish ourselves laughing at bigger clubs like Hibs and Aberdeen who, at times, appear to have investors trying to play real life football manager, let's be sure we don't go down that route. Fans of other clubs would give a lot to have control of their club, they've even been on here saying that, let's aim to get the most out of a reinvigorated fan ownership model. Tangentially related to this I noticed the Company Secretary in the replies to Speedie's tweet yesterday apparently completely unaware of...*everything*. Which...explains a lot, I guess. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 13 minutes ago, capt_oats said: Tangentially related to this I noticed the Company Secretary in the replies to Speedie's tweet yesterday apparently completely unaware of...*everything*. Which...explains a lot, I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP_MFC Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 To go back a few pages to the goalie chat, I see this and wonder if the Scottish interest was indeed us: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, MurrayWell said: Chat and statements suggest even the Well Society doesn't know what the executive board's thinking is, only seeing heads of terms after they've been agreed as just one example of this. In no other walk of life would a majority shareholder be actively kept out of the loop in this way, the executive board are a disgrace and need binned yesterday. This is thing that I keep coming back to in all of this. The level of disconnection between the club board and the ownership organisation is hard to get your head around (even more so because of the Society reps that are on both boards). I know that CEO aside, the chairman and directors don't take renumeration from the club - which is laudable and may even be a good thing - but the extent to which they forget who they are "working for" is borne out of complete arrogance. Alan Burrows being in place - clearly a die hard supporter that communicated well and a (mostly) very popular figure - masked a lot of what has been laid bare during this process. The good old "we know best" culture that exists in boardrooms across Scottish football is there for all to see despite the warm words over the years. Let's agree that having a fan owned club run by people that don't support or want fan ownership probably shouldn't be allowed to happen again once the current incumbents have given up their seat on the team bus and taken up their lifetime season tickets. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Well, it's here... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swami Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Moving a home game against the Old Firm to Wembley? Yes and ho! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP_MFC Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I presume there is more to come? To me that kind of reads like it has cut off any sort of conclusion and I don't see any changes? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Anyone else read that in Jim McMahon's patronising tones? 4 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.