Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[EK2DK]

5 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

 

I don't know if football would work that way

 

Erik, that’s the issue. 

You have not presented a plan and by this point, if you had one of any weight, we would have seen it.

You’ve sprouted ideas that would be welcome in a workshop environment  which is vastly different from assuming control of an institutional business.

Everything you have presented is reactionary and transitory and provides neither competitive advantage nor meaningful cultural Or community benefit to the club which are the pillars which a significant proportion, if not majority, of our fan base hold dear. 
 

[real-name-hidden]

10 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

 

David:

Answers below ...

(1) Remedies typically aren't contemplated in HOTs, but I think it should be made clear that any satisfactory remedy shouldn't change the ownership structure.  (Read: This isn't a backdoor to more shares -- and, in fact, I think this should be explicitly protected to prevent a loophole.) 

(2) I keep seeing the 10% comment in your posts, and I wanted to provide context, as it's something that was used in business plans often at my old job (and maybe it just doesn't land here).  The basic idea was that, over 5 or 10 years, you should be constantly testing the assumptions that drive a business, and that if you knew more than, say, half of what you should be doing over a time period today, you're either not testing enough, overly confident, or the business isn't that interesting.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't be well-informed, but as an example, at Netflix, we had a business plan to do 1-2 shows per territory in Europe, and assumed that audiences would be (mostly) local, but then we launched two shows in Span (Elite, Casa de Papel) that were bigger than Hollywood shows, and we basically completely re-wrote our plans for year 2 and beyond.  Almost 90% of what we thought we'd do changed in less than a year.  I don't know if football would work that way, but I wrote it as a willingness to accept change whereas I think you viewed it as stubborn ignorance.  There's a probably a better way to capture this idea for this group, so your point is taken.

(3) Implicit in this view is that curiosity and humility matter more than any particular strategic decisions.  You're going to be wrong on strategy numerous times anyway -- so you want a culture within a business that respects risk-taking, is practical, and able to pivot based on new info (at least that's the indoctrination I received).

(4) I do feel like it's important to state how the investment proposal came to be: (1) We viewed the video (like everyone else); (2) We quickly realized that co-investment of some sort was the only option that would work in this scenario; (3) this investment would only succeed long-term if we could form a collaborative relationship with the Well Society; and (4) this investment would not be designed for some exit/flip.  It was and is de facto impossible, I believe, to create a business plan in isolation that also satisfies these conditions.

(5) The thesis behind this is very different than what's presented in most football business plans.  I've had a chance to look at them, and it's either an explicit buyer or seller -- often in short decks -- stating that a huge opportunity exists, usually in the form of a clever player trading model, some stadium upgrade that only an American can realize, or a huge amount of dough can be made upon exit if you're promoted.  Of the ten I read, only two were more explicit than that, and they were for clubs that were already valued at 100m pounds+, written by investment bankers, and basically stating the same points but with highly complicated models that added certainty to investments that was utterly uncertain.

(6) We did present a lengthy deck as part of our proposal, which would not be appropriate to share here, but it basically assumed (and I know I'm repeating myself) that a plan would work if all of the stakeholders were involved in creating it, which is virtually impossible to do as an outsider.  I do not believe, for example, that it would be appropriate to list a bunch of KPIs without consulting the Well Society, and, as a side-note, it would be my preference to NOT have the vote until the Well Society has had a chance to present its business case, too.  (I think they've been working on this since at least March, and it seems like a plan will be released soon.) That way, voters could determine whether some of our ideas and TWS ideas would mix together/be complementary.

(7) As for our ideas, several points listed in our proposal were reiterated on this thread:

I was somewhat surprised that we didn't dive deeper here on a number of these points, and would still do so if it's helpful.  On some posts here, I've seen the same idea -- take AI, and how MFC should have a "smart" database that collates former season ticket holders and e-commerce purchasers -- as both ludicrously expensive/pie-in-the-sky and also painfully obvious.  But it cannot be both.  There are off the shelf programs that can be set up for less than 10k pounds and take roughly ten weeks to set up.  But reaching out to 20k fans intelligently and in a way that records what's been presented already could have a profound impact on the Club.  But that would need to be discussed in greater detail, and could only be effective if done with TWS.  And that, by the way is not a knock on TWS Board -- I believe leaders like Derek and Sean, who I'm guessing are still against this deal, would be interested and powerful in considering this as an area that could be explored with positive potential outcomes.

These are the discussions I would want to have, and which would ultimately inform how you build the right business plan, which is not going to be done by an outsider in isolation (nor am I particularly keen to focus on "Hollywood" or players or "AI").

E

 

 

Erik,

 

I think you would gain A LOT of credence if you considered the following:

 

Halt negotiations currently ongoing and commence full negotiations under the precedent that discussions will only take place when the majority shareholder is present and engaged… not with an outgoing chairman and members of an exec board who look largely unfavourably towards the majority shareholder which in-turn see’s (by your own admission) broken communications to said majority shareholder which, let’s be frank, is by design. 
 

You’re a businessman, I get it, you want the maximum for the minimum - - who wouldn’t? But surely to be upfront and sincere with, let’s again be honest, the people that will vote on this, the people who will put money in to the club post any deal or alternatively, walk away and cause financial implications for the club, is just simple decency and common sense?

[santheman]

[Handsome_Devil]

5 minutes ago, steelmen said:

To be fair to Feeley, he hasn’t resigned from the society so he is still ‘entitled’ to be one of the society’s club board members. I appreciate he is the only one left of the society board that supports this deal but he’s allowed his opinion.
 

Perhaps when the society put out their statement, he can put a dissenting opinion to explain why he voted for this investment.

The Society exists to promote and protect fan ownership, I think pushing to end that should disqualify you from the board.

[Vietnam91]

14 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

(3) I do feel like it's important to state how the investment proposal came to be: (1) We viewed the video (like everyone else); (2) We quickly realized that co-investment of some sort was the only option that would work in this scenario; (3) this investment would only succeed long-term if we could form a collaborative relationship with the Well Society; and (4) this investment would not be designed for some exit/flip.  It was and is de facto impossible, I believe, to create a business plan in isolation that also satisfies these conditions.

Point (2), What was your initial offer/plans? It would be interesting to see what "co-investment" in January looked like compared to today, that is if today's redraft was last and final.

Does (3) "collaborative" mean contrary to the majority of the WS board, their appointed directors in concert with the Chairman, dictate to the WS this had to take this to public vote, how much they would have to contribute?

(4) Is "De facto impossible" American for wing it without any substance?

[McGlovin']

4 minutes ago, EK2DK said:

 

Erik, that’s the issue. 

You have not presented a plan and by this point, if you had one of any weight, we would have seen it.

You’ve sprouted ideas that would be welcome in a workshop environment  which is vastly different from assuming control of an institutional business.

Everything you have presented is reactionary and transitory and provides neither competitive advantage nor meaningful cultural Or community benefit to the club which are the pillars which a significant proportion, if not majority, of our fan base hold dear. 
 

This 1000%

We've also not heard (I don't think) as to what any exit strategy would be.

I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that Erik and family will want to extract something from the club (I'm not calling it a business,, I don't think of myself of a customer, which is probably part of the attraction to would be investors I suppose)to compensate for all his time, expertise and 1 x Ben Heneghan per annum.

[Vietnam91]

2 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

The Society exists to promote and protect fan ownership, I think pushing to end that should disqualify you from the board.

Section 2 (i) to be exact of the WS Constitution.

[rowsdower]

Regardless of the result if all this, I am building my own open source crm and I have cultivated enough people from the "something is better than nothing" brigade from twitter and Facebook that I think my "at least youre not covered in actual shite" deodorant and aftershave range may be a success.

 

[David1979]

55 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

(1) Remedies typically aren't contemplated in HOTs, but I think it should be made clear that any satisfactory remedy shouldn't change the ownership structure.  (Read: This isn't a backdoor to more shares -- and, in fact, I think this should be explicitly protected to prevent a loophole.) 

While I appreciate your assurance that any remedies for unmet commitments shouldn't alter the ownership structure, I believe this matter needs to be clearly addressed before the Society membership vote.

It is crucial, in my opinion, to explicitly state in the information given to Society members that if the WS fails to meet its financial commitments, Wild Sheep Sports will not gain additional shares or ownership percentage. This provision must be clearly articulated to prevent any ambiguity and ensure the protection of the WS’s majority ownership.

Although the HOTs do not typically address such remedies, this isn't a typical situation, as I'm sure you'll agree. The proposal should outline what happens if the WS cannot meet its financial commitments. Possible remedies might include a grace period for the WS to meet its obligations, alternative financing options, or other solutions that do not involve changing the ownership structure. that would be on you, the executive board, and Well Society board to discuss.

Agreements on the above should then result in legal counsel to draft and review these provisions to ensure they are watertight and provide the necessary protection for the WS’s majority ownership.

Given the significance of this issue, it is vital that we do not rush the process. The tight timeline for the Society membership vote does not allow adequate time to address these crucial points properly, which is why I have proposed that this deal should not be progressing so quickly. We need to ensure that all aspects of the agreement are thoroughly reviewed and clearly defined to protect the interests of the WS, the club, and also you and your company.

55 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

(2) I keep seeing the 10% comment in your posts, and I wanted to provide context, as it's something that was used in business plans often at my old job (and maybe it just doesn't land here).  The basic idea was that, over 5 or 10 years, you should be constantly testing the assumptions that drive a business, and that if you knew more than, say, half of what you should be doing over a time period today, you're either not testing enough, overly confident, or the business isn't that interesting.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't be well-informed, but as an example, at Netflix, we had a business plan to do 1-2 shows per territory in Europe, and assuming that audiences would be (mostly) local, but then we launched two shows in Span (Elite, Casa de Papel) that were bigger than Hollywood shows, and we basically completely re-wrote our plans for year 2 and beyond.  Almost 90% of what we thought we'd do changed in less than a year.  I don't know if football would work that way, but I wrote it as a willingness to accept change whereas I think you viewed it as stubborn ignorance.  There's a probably a better way to capture this idea for this group, so your point is taken.

Erik, I appreciate your emphasis on flexibility and the importance of adapting to new opportunities. You're preaching to the converted there. I work in the tech industry and have had to be agile in previous dealings.

However, your response does not come close to addressing the specific questions and concerns I raised about the value and justification for the 47% stake you are seeking in the club.

I refer you to the following;

1. While you mentioned the strategic importance of flexibility and adapting plans, you did not provide a direct justification for why an initial £300,000 per year investment for three years, followed by the further agreed amount merits a 47% stake in the club. 

2. Your response highlighted the philosophy of adapting business strategies but lacked specific details about your business and investment plan for the club. Stakeholders need a clear understanding of the strategic initiatives you plan to implement. What are the key projects or areas of investment that will drive growth and success for the club? come on man, sell us on your vision!

3. It is essential to outline the actionable steps you intend to take over the investment period. Specific projects, marketing strategies, and operational improvements should be clearly defined. I understand your point about being flexible, but that should never imply that you don't need to provide a competent 'base level' to start from.

4. To evaluate the potential success of your proposed investment, we need to see measurable projected outcomes and milestones. What are the KPIs you will use to track progress? How do you project the return on investment (ROI) over the six-year period? Detailed financial projections and performance benchmarks are necessary to assess the feasibility and impact of your plan.

So, while I appreciate your strategic mindset and the value of adaptability in business, it is imperative that you present a basic plan of action with actionable, realistic plans complete with KPIs and projected ROI. This will enable stakeholders to make an informed decision and understand the tangible benefits your investment will bring to the club.

55 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

(3) I do feel like it's important to state how the investment proposal came to be: (1) We viewed the video (like everyone else); (2) We quickly realized that co-investment of some sort was the only option that would work in this scenario; (3) this investment would only succeed long-term if we could form a collaborative relationship with the Well Society; and (4) this investment would not be designed for some exit/flip.  It was and is de facto impossible, I believe, to create a business plan in isolation that also satisfies these conditions.

How the investment came to be doesn't really matter, does it? In the grand scheme of things?

A comprehensive business plan is essential for any significant investment, you know that. 

While initial inspiration from a video is understandable, a business plan goes beyond initial impressions to provide a detailed roadmap for sustainable growth and operational success. It includes financial projections, strategic initiatives, risk management strategies, and outlines the collaborative efforts with the Well Society.

Such a plan not only ensures clarity and transparency but also safeguards the club’s long-term viability and aligns all stakeholders towards shared goals. Without a robust business plan, there’s a risk of ambiguity and uncertainty regarding how investments will be utilised and how the club’s future will be secured, which are critical considerations for any responsible investor. Are you a responsible investor? 

55 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

(4) The thesis behind this is very different than what's presented in most football business plans.  I've had a chance to look at them, and it's either an explicit buyer or seller -- often in short decks -- stating that a huge opportunity exists, usually in the form of a clever player trading model, some stadium upgrade that only an American can realize, or a huge amount of dough can be made upon exit if you're promoted.  Of the ten I read, only two were more explicit than that, and they were for clubs that were already valued at 100m pounds+, written by investment bankers, and basically stating the same points but with highly complicated models that added certainty to an investment that was utterly uncertain.

I must admit, your answer only serves to confirm my reservations regarding Wild Sheep Sports’ involvement in Motherwell, especially given the unique nature of your approach. While it’s commendable to seek alternative business models in football, your admission of zero prior experience in this field raises significant concerns.

Football clubs, especially those in the top flight of Scottish football, require nuanced understanding and expertise in player management, fan engagement, financial sustainability, and the intricate dynamics of the game itself. Your critique of other business plans may highlight their shortcomings, but it also underscores the complexities inherent in football operations that cannot be overlooked.

The fact that Wild Sheep Sports has no track record in football club management or ownership poses a substantial risk to the club. It’s crucial for our club to be led by individuals with a deep understanding of the sport, its financial challenges, and the community it serves. While unconventional approaches can be appealing, they must be complemented by a solid foundation of knowledge and experience in football governance. And not only have you not offered that, but it seems to be outwith your capabilities at this point, in my opinion. We cannot be treated as a set of training wheels for you and your company to dip your toe into football.

I strongly believe that owning 47% of a football club and assuming the role of chairman should require more than a novel business thesis. It necessitates a proven track record in football management or a demonstrated commitment to learning and understanding the unique demands of the industry.

Basically, at the risk of sounding incredibly harsh, I don't think you're up to the job.

55 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

(5) We did present a lengthy deck as part of our proposal, which would not be appropriate to share here, but it basically assumed (and I know I'm repeating myself) that a plan would work if all of the stakeholders were involved in creating it, which is virtually impossible to do as an outsider.  I do not believe, for example, that it would be appropriate to list a bunch of KPIs without consulting the Well Society, and, as a side-note, it would be my preference to NOT have the vote until the Well Society has had a chance to present its business case, too.  (I think they've been working on this since at least March, and it seems like a plan will be released soon.) That way, voters could determine whether some of our ideas and TWS ideas would mix together/be complementary.

Firstly, it's crucial for all stakeholders, particularly the majority shareholder, to have full visibility into the proposal. The detailed deck you mentioned forms a vital part of understanding the depth and implications of your plan. Without sharing this information, it's difficult for the Well Society and other shareholders to make a well-informed decision.

Secondly, while I understand your preference to delay the vote until the Well Society presents its business case, it raises questions about when and how you plan to consult with them and other stakeholders regarding the specifics of your proposal, including the deck and any detailed plans.

Pursuing a collaborative approach between Wild Sheep Sports and the Well Society is commendable. However, the absence of concrete details and KPIs from your proposal could potentially hinder a thorough evaluation of how these ideas align or complement each other. Could you provide more clarity on when stakeholders can expect a more detailed discussion on these aspects?

Lastly, I am interested to know what specific elements in your presentation deck convinced the executive board of your expertise and the viability of your proposal. Understanding these factors would help in contextualising the board’s endorsement. That would maybe be a question to ask them, if they weren't refusing to hold in-person Q&A's with the fanbase.

55 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

On some posts here, I've seen the same idea -- take AI, and how MFC should have a "smart" database that collates former season ticket holders and e-commerce purchasers -- as both ludicrously expensive/pie-in-the-sky and also painfully obvious.  But it cannot be both.  There are off the shelf programs that can be set up for less than 10k pounds and take roughly ten weeks to set up.  But reaching out to 20k fans intelligently and in a way that records what's been presented already could have a profound impact on the Club.  But that would need to be discussed in greater detail, and could only be effective if done with TWS.  And that, by the way is not a knock on TWS Board -- I believe leaders like Derek and Sean, who I'm guessing are still against this deal, would be interested and powerful in considering this as an area that could be explored with positive potential outcomes.

Your assertion that implementing such systems would be both cost-effective and straightforward raises an important question: if off-the-shelf solutions can achieve these goals for less than £10k and within a relatively short timeframe, why would we consider relinquishing 47% of the club and the Chairmanship to you in return for it?

While I appreciate the potential value of your ideas, the disparity between their perceived simplicity and relatively modest likelihood of success or marginal impact, and the substantial stake you seek in return is concerning. It prompts me to question whether the proposed investment truly aligns with the proportional benefits it offers to MFC and its stakeholders.

I believe there's merit in exploring innovative ways to enhance fan engagement and operational efficiency. Yet, the scale of equity you're requesting suggests a significant imbalance in the perceived value versus what is being offered. 

There's no way what you're offering is worth 47% of the club and a significant presence in the boardroom. For that reason I'll be voting no.

 

Edited June 21 by David1979

[For Your Pies Only]

I can't believe I'm typing this on a P&B forum, but Netflix and media production companies do not operate on the same business principles or models as 130+ year old provincial Scottish football clubs. Trying to run the latter like the former is an awful, awful idea - there is no room to 'fail forward' as the saying goes in tech circles, because clubs like Motherwell don't have the capital or business pivot potential to waste money and resources on a hastily workshopped ideas (sorry, that should be an 'agile strategy', I'm forgetting my business-speak) that might grow the business. If we fail commercially, that has an effect on playing staff. If we then fail on the pitch as a result, we're goosed.

I have no doubt the Barmacks are very, very good at what they do - their CVs would suggest that, as does their ability to make investments in the millions. I don't want to denigrate that, fair play to them. But the lack of understanding they are displaying about the club, community and Scottish football in general during this whole debacle is insane to me.

"I don't know if football would work that way"

Aye - that's become abundantly clear

[Firparka]

4 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Does Twitter interactions result in any sort of money or branding opportunity though.

For example I'm 100% sure there are a few hundred Scottish weirdos all over Ryan Gauld's twitter. But what does that mean for the Vancouver Whitecaps? Are they getting any money from his noteriety? At best a few pilgrims might make the trip and buy a ticket to the game. Is Ryan Gauld the face of anything in Scotland, have you ever seen a Whitecaps shirt with Gauld on the back?

Economically Liam Grimshaw was probably a bigger boon to the club than Bevis because he had his brother and a few mates coming up for a lot of games.

 

Strategy 1 was raise enough funds to buy a majority of the shares in the club.

That has been completed successfully. And since taking control the club has continued to run on its profitable business model.

In my experience of running businesses and working with large businesses, it is typically not the responsibility of the shareholders to come up with the strategy to grow the business. As the owners, the WS should expect the professionals they employed to do that. So, it now seems that those professionals should be replaced if their ideas on growth don't work for the fans.

[MurrayWell]

47 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said:

We did present a lengthy deck as part of our proposal, which would not be appropriate to share here, but it basically assumed (and I know I'm repeating myself) that a plan would work if all of the stakeholders were involved in creating it, which is virtually impossible to do as an outsider.  I do not believe, for example, that it would be appropriate to list a bunch of KPIs without consulting the Well Society, and, as a side-note, it would be my preference to NOT have the vote until the Well Society has had a chance to present its business case, too.  (I think they've been working on this since at least March, and it seems like a plan will be released soon.) That way, voters could determine whether some of our ideas and TWS ideas would mix together/be complementary.

 

Curious, are you calling for the vote to be delayed? Why don't you come up with a proposed strategy with the WS, rather than working with the exec board and present this to voters as an option? You really expect us to vote for this before you have a plan? Appreciate your point about strategies being a developing process, ie not going to be perfect right away, but you must have a plan of how working with the WS would look? It seems like your proposal and that of the WS are working completely independently, despite you stating you want to work with them. If you want them to be involved, involve them rather than an outgoing chairman who continues to undermine them at every opportunity. If we're to vote for your proposal, we need to see how that will look. 

You say you would prefer vote to happen after WS presents its business case "too". So you have a full strategy or not or is this the lengthy decks you're referring to? Who did you present this to and why would it not be appropriate to share this with voters (the collective owners of the club)? If we don't know the KPIs you'd be aiming for how could we assess whether or not your investment has been a success and whether or not we want to take up the buy back option (should it go ahead)? 

As I said previously, we can all talk concepts and ideas all day long, we need to know what the plan is ahead of a vote. At the risk of repeating myself, this club has been burnt by big ideas with no substance and empty promises before. We can't allow it to happen again. 

[Vietnam91]

[Wellmental21]

1 hour ago, McGlovin' said:

This 1000%

We've also not heard (I don't think) as to what any exit strategy would be.

I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that Erik and family will want to extract something from the club (I'm not calling it a business,, I don't think of myself of a customer, which is probably part of the attraction to would be investors I suppose)to compensate for all his time, expertise and 1 x Ben Heneghan per annum.

He claimed to a question on Twitter today that he has no exit and no desire to draw funds.

so on the face of it just wants to give £1.9m for the fun of it

[Archie McSquackle]

So the WS need to substantially increase what they are already raising on an annual basis (for a reduced stake in the club) and after 2 years have the option to buy EB out if 'not considered to bring sufficient value '. Where are WS going to get over £600k from at this point when they've probably had to dip into their reserves just to keep up payments? They could potentially go from being in the black to struggling to make ends meet for a failed experiment they don't actually want. 

Or am I missing something?

[Antiochas III]

53 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said:

So the WS need to substantially increase what they are already raising on an annual basis (for a reduced stake in the club) and after 2 years have the option to buy EB out if 'not considered to bring sufficient value '. Where are WS going to get over £600k from at this point when they've probably had to dip into their reserves just to keep up payments? They could potentially go from being in the black to struggling to make ends meet for a failed experiment they don't actually want. 

Or am I missing something?

No, it looks like the deal is set up specifically to hamstring the Society.  

[CoF]

It’s no surprise at all if a lot of people don’t have a great affinity for the well society and therefore, for fan ownership. It’s been a largely silent monolith in the background for years that’s done little to engage or enthuse people. 

In the grand scheme of the clubs history, we’ve been relatively stable since the well society was formed, even with some small successes, yet the link between those successes and the society aren’t made. Even updates on how the club improvement fund is being used would be something. As a result, when we do hit a rocky patch on the pitch, forget to tell fans who the manager is, take fucking ages to appoint a CEO and reduce fan engagement, the whole operation looks rudderless. That separation is not helped by the fact the well society website was amalgamated into the club site. Small but symbolic. It just doesn’t feel like it’s got a presence and that’s become evident in how this proposal has been managed by the club board.  
 

None of this sleight at all on the new society board, who I have been impressed with, but after 8 years it’s no wonder this current proposal is appealing to some. A bit like politics, there’s a continuum of detail people go into. Some go forensic, but many will only see the headline - a guy with an interesting CV has taken an interest in the club - and if the well society need to cede some control then it’s no surprise its met with little more than a shrug. Call them thick, but if this goes through it sits entirely with society. 

 

Edited June 22 by CoF

[Handsome_Devil]

50 minutes ago, CoF said:

It’s no surprise at all if a lot of people don’t have a great affinity for the well society and therefore, for fan ownership. It’s been a largely silent monolith in the background for years that’s done little to engage or enthuse people. 

In the grand scheme of the clubs history, we’ve been relatively stable since the well society was formed, even with some small successes, yet the link between those successes and the society aren’t made. Even updates on how the club improvement fund is being used would be something. As a result, when we do hit a rocky patch on the pitch, forget to tell fans who the manager is, take fucking ages to appoint a CEO and reduce fan engagement, the whole operation looks rudderless. That separation is not helped by the fact the well society website was amalgamated into the club site. Small but symbolic. It just doesn’t feel like it’s got a presence and that’s become evident in how this proposal has been managed by the club board.  
 

None of this sleight at all on the new society board, who I have been impressed with, but after 8 years it’s no wonder this current proposal is appealing to some. A bit like politics, there’s a continuum of detail people go into. Some go forensic, but many will only see the headline - a guy with an interesting CV has taken an interest in the club - and if the well society need to cede some control then it’s no surprise its met with little more than a shrug. Call them thick, but if this goes through it sits entirely with society. 

 

To an extent sure, entirely? Nah...if people can't be bothered or unable to look beyond a headline for a decision like this, that's on them. 

Otherwise I agree with the sentiment but I would repeat for balance that being quiet in the background was literally their job. They weren't supposed to get involved day to day, they weren't supposed to fund the club... circumstances and wishes have changed for many, no problem, but I think chucking the whole thing out the window rather than first attempting a minor tweak because comms was sub-par is a hell of an overreaction.

And I'd argue that the sort of people who overreact like that will probably never be happy with what the Society produces (that's possibly unfair - just a hunch). I certainly don't think it's a surprise that reaction on the boards, with people who clearly spends a tonne of time absorbing info about the club, is near universally negative while Barmack's target voter is the social media crowd who decide on the headline and not the details.

[steelmen]

9 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

The Society exists to promote and protect fan ownership, I think pushing to end that should disqualify you from the board.

I can only surmise he doesn’t think this will.

I agree with you but I am trying to see why some board members see this as a good deal. They must have reasons… don’t they?

 

 

 

[Handsome_Devil]

1 minute ago, steelmen said:

I can only surmise he doesn’t think this will.

I agree with you but I am trying to see why some board members see this as a good deal. They must have reasons… don’t they?

 

 

 

If the pair who resigned have changed their mind, I would disagree with them (and find it rather petty months after elections to herald a fresh start) but fair enough.

The original deal though clearly didn't meet fan ownership by definition, something the club have even now admitted.

If I were the other six I'd be binning him as chair asap if he doesn't resign but I suspect it's not a top priority given the rest of the shitshow McMahon has landed them in.