well fan for life Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 4 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Here is my main issue. Why is all this being handled with secrecy. We don't even know who these people are. We are supposed to be a commuity club and if there was a genuine offer that had proper benefits for the club and wider community they would be publicly saying so. instead it is being done in a clandestine manner with no information actually coming out. Just because folk pay 10 quid a month doesn't mean they should immediately be informed of everything the club does. Not sure there's much merit in giving the details of a relatively complex financial arrangement that publicly names the interested party out to a load of people who have absolutely no idea how this stuff works. For me the club have done the correct thing here. There's an interested party, the initial details have been deemed acceptable enough to fully explore so they are doing that before putting it out to the shareholders including the Well Society. All this coming off the back of the exploratory vote that said fans would consider outside investment. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 I've already said I'm a bit sceptical of this and while I would like investment in the club, it shouldn't be a case of giving it all, or a huge share, away for short-term gains. At the risk of repeating myself, and ignoring the other cringe issues, I was really disappointed that the campaign/video was all about investing in the fan ownership model, then the goalposts were moved to "oh, would you maybe sell the club?". But folk losing their minds at the "vagueness" of this is some laugh. They literally canny say anything else at this point, they've said updates will be provided as it moves. Folk should/will know the full details before it goes to a vote, especially if the Well Society (the majority shareholder) puts it to a members vote, which judging by their statement will happen. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Despite any concerns I might have about this, to be fair to the club board - they said they were looking for more investment, a fairly short time later they confirmed they had interested parties, they have been talking to those interested parties and now they have one that they want to do something with - they have announced it. I'm not really sure what sort of running commentary folk expect over and above that. In other clubs, investors are simply announced when the deal is done - the Well Society will get full details and will actually require to approve whatever is agreed - that is way better than what happens at "normal" clubs. Business deals/discussions/negotiations are done completely in private - commonly with non-disclosure agreements in place to protect both sides, so we need to be realistic here. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 7 minutes ago, Swello said: Business deals/discussions/negotiations are done completely in private - commonly with non-disclosure agreements in place to protect both sides, so we need to be realistic here. Aye. We're months into selling the club and there's not even a whisper of the buyers name(s) involved, nor any idea of what the deal would actually be, and the most official thing I can remember seeing about it is Levein mentioning in an article that he met the new owner(s) once at a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Swello said: Business deals/discussions/negotiations are done completely in private - commonly with non-disclosure agreements in place to protect both sides, so we need to be realistic here. Aye but folk pay their £10 a month and MUST! BE! INFORMED! Because normal business process, due diligence and financial law doesn't apply to us. Edited April 4 by StAndrew7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blink182 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 I totally agree with the previous posts that it seems everything is being done as it should be. I also look forward to the WS vote email where the details are described as; "An American Family wants to join our family, they will provide some financial support in return for a large percentage of the club." With some added vagueness around how to answer a yea/no question correctly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 6 minutes ago, Blink182 said: I also look forward to the WS vote email where the details are described as; "An American Family wants to join our family, they will provide some financial support in return for a large percentage of the club." With some added vagueness around how to answer a yea/no question correctly. I think this will honestly be quite a difficult thing to do for the 'Well Society. Can they boil down what might be quite a complicated agreement to the point where us rank and file members can have a meaningful vote* on it? If the deal involves the investors becoming majority shareholders & owners (right away or over time), then it is quite an easy question to ask folk - "Should the 'Well Society give up majority ownership of MFC?" kind of thing. If they are not after majority ownership but have a business plan to make some money - then how do people vote on something that (a) might be quite complicated and (b) might not be publicly shareable/confidential? *Members actually getting a binding vote on this stuff is a massive assumption on my part BTW - I would guess that the 'Well Society board have no formal/legal obligation to do that unless the Society itself is being wound up/fundamentally changed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Blink182 said: I totally agree with the previous posts that it seems everything is being done as it should be. I also look forward to the WS vote email where the details are described as; "An American Family wants to join our family, they will provide some financial support in return for a large percentage of the club." With some added vagueness around how to answer a yea/no question correctly. I very much doubt that will happen. Each WS member (as shareholders in the club) should receive the same information as any other private shareholder; which will be a significant amount of information. 4 minutes ago, Swello said: I think this will honestly be quite a difficult thing to do for the 'Well Society. Can they boil down what might be quite a complicated agreement to the point where us rank and file members can have a meaningful vote* on it? If the deal involves the investors becoming majority shareholders & owners (right away or over time), then it is quite an easy question to ask folk - "Should the 'Well Society give up majority ownership of MFC?" kind of thing. If they are not after majority ownership but have a business plan to make some money - then how do people vote on something that (a) might be quite complicated and (b) might not be publicly shareable/confidential? *Members actually getting a binding vote on this stuff is a massive assumption on my part BTW - I would guess that the 'Well Society board have no formal/legal obligation to do that unless the Society itself is being wound up/fundamentally changed. From what I understand, the Society membership votes and the Board has to then enact the Society's wishes by voting with its block of shares. The Board cannot make a unilateral decision without asking its membership to inform them how they should proceed; which, in my mind, should be based on all the information made available relating to any potential investment. There's strict corporate law that governs this; I'm absolutely not an expert in it, but my understanding is that every shareholder (so essentially every member of the WS, who are part of their 72ish% stake) and the other 28% receive the same information to review and vote on. Now, how the Society Board wishes to provide that information to its members is their choice, however if I were a member I would want to receive absolutely everything that is passed on from the investor and Executive Board to review and I've seen nothing mentioned from any of the Board members that would contradict that being the case.. Edited April 4 by StAndrew7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, StAndrew7 said: I very much doubt that will happen. Each WS member (as shareholders in the club) should receive the same information as any other private shareholder; which will be a significant amount of information. From what I understand, the Society membership votes and the Board has to then enact the Society's wishes by voting with its block of shares. The Board cannot make a unilateral decision without asking its membership to inform them how they should proceed; which, in my mind, should be based on all the information made available relating to any potential investment. There's strict corporate law that governs this; I'm absolutely not an expert in it, but my understanding is that every shareholder (so essentially every member of the WS, who are part of their 72ish% stake) and the other 28% receive the same information to review and vote on. Now, how the Society Board wishes to provide that information to its members is their choice, however if I were a member I would want to receive absolutely everything that is passed on from the investor and Executive Board to review. I don't want to go down a rabbit hole as this place should be about discussing how Chris Porter was definitely underrated, how Stuart McCall was a shite manager or the state of the East Stand steps - but is it really the case that individual 'Well Society members are shareholders in a legal sense? I would honestly be surprised if the small details of the deal were broadcast to a few thousand people (and their kids). I think that the 'Well Society board will see everything - but I think a lot of folk will be disappointed about what is then shared on... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) I for one would be very surprised if any potential owner / investor is not seeking to gain an overall majority shareholding. I simply would not. How the investment is structured and how that will be summarised to the Well Society will be the key element. Absolutely nothing wrong with being sceptical, but it does appears some people already have their backs up and are shut off to any future proposal for reasons unknown to me. Certainly without knowing what is on the table. I think we were all surprised at the low % of Society members voting last time around. I would expect a much higher % this time around when we actually have something finite to vote on. I think most sensible people can work out quite quickly if this proposal is likely to be something that will benefit and safeguard the future of the club and be worthwhile voting favourably. Or just not worth the effort if the initial investment is on the inconsequential side as has been rumoured. Edited April 4 by welldaft 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Swello said: I don't want to go down a rabbit hole as this place should be about discussing how Chris Porter was definitely underrated, how Stuart McCall was a shite manager or the state of the East Stand steps - but is it really the case that individual 'Well Society members are shareholders in a legal sense? I would honestly be surprised if the small details of the deal were broadcast to a few thousand people (and their kids). I think that the 'Well Society board will see everything - but I think a lot of folk will be disappointed about what is then shared on... All shareholders will get the proposals so Society members will get everything official for sure. Where the Society board may get more than the average Joe is in off the record briefings...but ultimately this is for the purchaser to decide. It's not a normal business they're buying and they'll know without details they will probably lose the vote. Edited April 4 by Handsome_Devil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Swello said: I don't want to go down a rabbit hole as this place should be about discussing how Chris Porter was definitely underrated, how Stuart McCall was a shite manager or the state of the East Stand steps - but is it really the case that individual 'Well Society members are shareholders in a legal sense? I would honestly be surprised if the small details of the deal were broadcast to a few thousand people (and their kids). I think that the 'Well Society board will see everything - but I think a lot of folk will be disappointed about what is then shared on... As far as I understand it, if you're a Well Society member, you're a shareholder. Perhaps some members or @JayMFC can confirm that, or give their perspective on their understanding of it? It's a fair point re: everyone receiving it; I wouldn't expect Junior Steel members to receive the information, obviously. I would absolutely expect full Society members to at least have the option to review all of the relevant documentation before they vote. How on earth can its membership be expected to vote without full knowledge of any potential loss in their majority ownership stake in the club, or a significant dilution of their shareholding by 25% or so? It can be done in several ways, I guess; meetings/presentations/webinars, where documents are presented and shared, emailed out with a link to a secure website which doesn't allow downloads, screenshots etc. or everyone gets sent an "investment pack" which details everything. Now, I'm not a Society member; I'm a private shareholder and perhaps my expectations are a bit different based on that, but why should I receive more information than someone who has likely contributed more money to the club than I have based on monthly contributions? Edited April 4 by StAndrew7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, welldaft said: I for one would be very surprised if any potential owner / investor is not seeking to gain an overall majority shareholding. I simply would not. How the investment is structured and how that will be summarised to the Well Society will be the key element. Absolutely nothing wrong with being sceptical, but it does appears some people already have their backs up and are a shut off to any future proposal for reasons unknown to me. Certainly without knowing what is on the table. It's based on the balance of probability and to what extent spending time/money on this is an effective use of resources given the opportunity cost involved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 There is also the possibility that a wealthy investor could give us the breathing space to actually grow fan ownership into something that isn't just for making ends meet. For example if there was someone US based who had perhaps sold an engineering company to make a fortune. They then might want to help us get fan ownership working with their input. Would be unthinkable though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 I seem to remember spending about £200 for what was essentially some vanity shares. It gets me invited to the AGM so I guess I am part of the 28% of private shareholders. I will get two votes as a WS member too. I mentioned earlier that I am as interested in what happens at the end of any investment period as I am about what form it takes. Anything that helps us could be welcomed but anything that may leave us in the shit after everyone has had their fun should be avoided. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) Anyone going into this without a degree of scepticism hasn't been paying attention to Scottish football over the years. Investment could be great, would be more than welcomed if the terms of it are best for the club, infrastructure and community going forward. Important to keep an open mind and consider what folk are willing to bring to the table. Some of the rhetoric around this seems to be that we are desperate for investment, I'm not sure that's the case. When the image is painted that clubs really need investment, that's when to be most vigilant of anyone coming in making promises. Edited April 4 by MurrayWell 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 31 minutes ago, Swello said: how Stuart McCall was a shite manager @Swello, thank you 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 9 minutes ago, MurrayWell said: Anyone going into this without a degree of scepticism hasn't been paying attention to Scottish football over the years. Investment could be great, would be more than welcomed if the terms of it are best for the club, infrastructure and community going forward. Important to keep an open mind and consider what folk are willing to bring to the table. Some of the rhetoric around this seems to be that we are desperate for investment, I'm not sure that's the case. When the image is painted that clubs really need investment, that's when to be most vigilant of anyone coming in making promises. We're absolutely not; if anything, the healthy accounts the club has been demonstrating (essentially since fan ownership was realised) have made the club more attractive to investors than, some would argue, it ever has been. Edited April 4 by StAndrew7 love a comma, me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 7 minutes ago, ropy said: Anything that helps us could be welcomed but anything that may leave us in the shit after everyone has had their fun should be avoided. This is massively important, too. Said similar on the auld Twitter.com last night. We shouldn't be looking to see what "a family" is claiming they'll put into the club, it's what they're looking to take out. If enough people look beyond the first to concentrate on the second, we'll be fine. Do you trust enough Motherwell fans to do that though? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 3 minutes ago, Desp said: This is massively important, too. Said similar on the auld Twitter.com last night. We shouldn't be looking to see what "a family" is claiming they'll put into the club, it's what they're looking to take out. If enough people look beyond the first to concentrate on the second, we'll be fine. Do you trust enough Motherwell fans to do that though? This gives me the absolute fear. 1 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.