Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Doctor Manhattan]

1 hour ago, ropy said:

Auction things off including the right to play in a match at Fir Park (been done before hasn’t it?)

How much did Aaron Chapman's ticket cost him?

['WellDel]

1 minute ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

How much did Aaron Chapman's ticket cost him?

Nowhere near as much as it nearly cost us. That game vs Accies had me convinced we were utterly, utterly fucked.

[eliphas]

I know it's been a wee break in the actual football but we really should just wait for the detail of the bid, if ends up going to that stage, being shared. Would certainly save a lot of angst 

 

[Ceiling Granny]

If £1.5 million  over 5 years for 50% is the offer he should be laughed out the boardroom. 
 

To be honest, I’ve been kind of surprised at how many people are jumping up and down at the prospect of outside investment (even if that means the majority share is lost). Makes me wonder if the same people would be willing to, for example, give the Cooper stand to Celtic/Rangers because it brings in an extra £X a season, and that would secure us a bit more.  I’m not suggesting we do this, I’m just suggesting that there are many options to raise an extra few hundred thousand a season (palatable or not), and where is the line? 

[CoF]

2 hours ago, ropy said:

If the club needs £1M then we could raise it.  We could be creative. 

Anyone up for a quirky tongue in cheek video campaign? 

[capt_oats]

Tbh, I think that the whole thing has been handled woefully and there's more than an eyebrow to be raised about how McMahon's gone about this (shock!).

On the point of the offer though assuming it is the £1.5m over 5 years then to Devils Advocate; how much does the WS bring in annually? The last WS AGM update from 7th August 2023 had the following:

Quote

Accounts

Members also accepted the accounts, which showed that we brought in £155,000 over the year. The Society currently holds a fund of £560,000 at the bank. This reserve:

• acts as reassurance for auditors
• continues to grow
• is a substantial safety net, which would be available to the club at a moment's notice if required 

At the moment the amount owed by the club to the WS sits at £868k for an interest free loan used for general working capital and repayable on demand.

So based on that the WS have put £868k into the club with a cash reserve of £560k. So that's a total of £1,428,000 since what? 2016 or 17? (happy to be corrected on these points). If it's roughly accurate though it's pretty, pretty close to what has been rumoured to have been tabled by Barmack.

Is £1.5m for majority ownership a good offer to "sell" given the assets at the Football Club and the fact that this whole shitshow wasn't even put into motion by the WS? Absolutely not.

Should it be accepted? Probably not but equally if someone turns up at the table and says "I'll put in double annually what the majority owner is bringing in" then I'm not surprised there may be a question raised over what the split of shares looks like.

Again, I'm not advocating for the offer and I think the whole thing has been incredibly unhelpful given the state of flux we were in at the time.

I mean, my preference would be to put a pin in the whole thing, get McMahon tae f**k and allow Caldwell and the new Society board to find their feet and revisit the "investment" idea further down the line on the WS terms rather than whatever this is where we've been railroaded into a discussion by the chairman having gone rogue.

Edited April 23 by capt_oats

[Busta Nut]

We need more sensible people thinking about this rather than the Facebook/Twitter crowd who think it's gonna be like cheating in Football Manager.

[Vietnam91]

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

At the moment the amount owed by the club to the WS sits at £868k for an interest free loan used for general working capital and repayable on demand.

So based on that the WS have put £868k into the club with a cash reserve of £560k. So that's a total of £1,428,000 since what? 2016 or 17? (happy to be corrected on these points). If it's roughly accurate though it's pretty, pretty close to what has been rumoured to have been tabled by Barmack.

Is £1.5m for majority ownership a good offer to "sell" given the assets at the Football Club and the fact that this whole shitshow wasn't even put into motion by the WS? Absolutely not.

Should it be accepted? Probably not but equally if someone turns up at the table and says "I'll put in double annually what the majority owner is bringing in" then I'm not surprised there may be a question raised over what the split of shares looks like.

Les insisted the WS contribute a regular income stream since 2016/2017 which hasn't been secured (however no doubt recorded) so 7 years of approximately £100k+ puts that £1.43 figure north of £2m in reality. If those funds were currently held by the WS (as was envisaged and sold to us at inception) then we would able to convey our solvency for 3 years not just 18 months when audited in October.

A primary driver of this is it is felt the WS can’t make up the shortfall in a perfect storm season. Jim has presided over the club now for 7 years approximately. If anyone can cite any particular revenue streams or initiatives he is responsible for and will cease when he leaves it could really add to the debate. If there are none then I am unsure why the WS are being held to a higher financial standard than their predecessor.

Edited April 23 by Vietnam91

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

The club is worth way more than £3m. And not paid up over installments.

Should be a complete non starter.

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

how much does the WS bring in annually?

What does this have to do with anything. Your house is worth X but you only earn Y so you have to give someone a discount to buy it off you?

[Archie McSquackle]

What did the Well Society pay for a majority stake in the club? Is that where this figure of £1.5m come from? Or was that the figure for the Australian/US consortium and no-one really knows what this guy is prepared to put in?

[Self-raising Lazarus]

3 hours ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

How much did Aaron Chapman's ticket cost him?

Petravicius came to mind too

[camer0n_mcd]

1 hour ago, Busta Nut said:

We need more sensible people thinking about this rather than the Facebook/Twitter crowd who think it's gonna be like cheating in Football Manager.

So you're saying we might not be able to go out and buy Mbappé? I for one am shocked!

I genuinely think a big part of why these people believe that fan ownership can't work/hasn't worked is simply because Killie and St Mirren out bid us for Van Veen.

Even if you look over at Steelmen Online it's mind-blowing the amount of mental gymnastics that people are using to say that the 2 million pound profit we've had under fan ownership doesn't really count.

Edited April 23 by camer0n_mcd

[welldaft]

If it is even remotely close to the rumoured sum and expected share of ownership being quoted on here. Then I would not even expect the Board to bother putting it to the Well Society and wider fan base. And even if they do then I would not expect it to be voted through.

Quite simply a few hundred thousand £ per annum is not going to make a material difference to the club. The Well Society and club could probably raise at least half that with renewed focus / fund raising and not hand over any ownership to anyone ! I also think that at that level it would surely draw out other interested parties.

I noted some comments about the fund raising initiative and the Board involvement. Some in my humble opinion are overly harsh and critical unless those that made the comments know exactly what has been happening behind the scenes. 

The Board made it clear that we need outside investment if we are to continue to compete with the majority of clubs in the top flight who do benefit from substantial outside / owner investment on an ongoing basis. That I think we can all agree with. We can debate how much success or otherwise it would bring. Citing examples like Dundee Utd and more recently Queens Park where significant investment has arguably failed to yield any real success. But the fact are we will be one of the very few clubs left that are not subsidised and supported. 

The video was alright. Nothing great but not as bad as many are making out. It did generate interest. And if nothing else the wider football and business community know we are actively seeking investment. I still find it surprising that many clubs have that investment as I would see us a more attractive option. I am naturally biased of course.

If as a result of the video the only real interest for now is Barmack and his offer is as poor as is being quoted then we will continue to be fan owned until an acceptable offer materialises if it ever does. It is as simple as that. 

 

Edited April 24 by welldaft

[Busta Nut]

35 minutes ago, welldaft said:

 

The Board made it clear that we need outside investment if we are to continue to compete with the majority of clubs in the top flight who do benefit from substantial outside / owner investment on an ongoing basis. That I think we can all agree with.

I am not comfortable with this view. 
Firstly on what "competing" actually means. Secondly on who said it and how it was put across at a time when they were pushing their agenda they'd been backed into. 

Again I know nothing really other than what I see and read myself. I'm not very well versed in these things but I have my doubts.
 

[capt_oats]

13 hours ago, Busta Nut said:

We need more sensible people thinking about this rather than the Facebook/Twitter crowd who think it's gonna be like cheating in Football Manager.

This is something I was thinking about yesterday in so much as c***s are getting excited about what they *think* they're getting rather than the reality (which isn't a dig at Barmack - I don't know the guy and I don't know what the offer is but everything points to it being pretty low stakes, low risk).

It's almost a worst of both worlds situation where the folk giving themselves a stroke about 50+1 will be raging because the WS shareholding will have been diluted and the Facebook/Twitter crowd will lose their mind when they realise that Barmack isn't a 'mogul', didn't own Netflix - he's just a relatively wealthy guy who quite possibly doesn't even want to own a Scottish Fitba' club and a low stakes, low risk offer like this won't actually move the dial in the way they want so we'll still be having to sell Theo Bair and Lennon Miller because it's literally our business model and we still wouldn't have chucked £6k p/w at KVV back in January because it would have been mental.

IMO, if what's rumoured is actually the case, the offer on the table is...pretty much what should have been expected when you think of the limitations:

• We're not looking to sell the club
• We don't want to cede any meaningful control
• But we want "investment"
• "Taylor Swift, gies some dosh"

Without wanting to kick the can of that video around again but to repeat one of my main issues with the messaging put out by McMahon what exactly would any "investor" be getting out of this?

Edited April 24 by capt_oats

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, Busta Nut said:

I am not comfortable with this view. 
Firstly on what "competing" actually means. Secondly on who said it and how it was put across at a time when they were pushing their agenda they'd been backed into. 

Again I know nothing really other than what I see and read myself. I'm not very well versed in these things but I have my doubts.
 

I'd agree with you; that's not directly what they said when pressed on it at based on my recollection (I've gone back and re-read my notes from SO to clarify).

The whole narrative around the financial concerns re: the club was around that magic £750k "funding gap" figure; i.e. if we were to exit all cup competitions at the first stage, finish 10th, not sell any players or receive any development fees for young players. It's very much built around a perfect storm in a teacup. A couple of seasons of that lack of success would put us into a bit of trouble.

There was a narrative throughout the meeting around our inability to compete financially for players with teams in the National League during the January window (although given that's the "expensive" window, I'd perhaps take that with a pinch of salt). The KVV to Killie loan was also mentioned, regarding the wages etc. that they were willing to pay for him that blew us out of the water; St Mirren were also discussed here as having offered more wages for him.

Outside investment was not the only situation they said would work; increased funding from the WS was also discussed and was stated at the time as being both of their preferences ("as members of the WS" and "in an ideal world the WS will be a success" or words to that effect). I think the one thing that needs to be acknowledged here is that there will inevitably be a point where the WS will peak in terms of its ability to raise funds and support the club but I don't think it's gotten close to that yet. When it does, I would say that's when outside investment needs to be sought, if it's required.

Although if an investor comes in to work alongside the WS, keeping it 51/49, 60/40 or whatever and making back their investment through other channels, whilst also supporting the WS to grow its base (potentially outside of the core fans, selling the club globally or whatever, if it's EB), then that would be absolutely ideal.

I think the other thing to point out is that if I were in EB's shoes, my starting bid for any investment in the club would be relatively low; it's the nature of these kind of negotiations. I fully agree that £1.5m for half the club is absolute bollocks; hopefully the Executive Board do as well and have subsequently kicked it into touch. Three weeks into exclusivity, I'd expect there to have been at least one revised offer tabled with hopefully either a reduced overall shareholding or an increase in the investment.

Edited April 24 by StAndrew7

[MurrayWell]

Weird flex, given our results against them, but okay 

 

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, welldaft said:

If it is even remotely close to the rumoured sum and expected share of ownership being quoted on here. Then I would not even expect the Board to bother putting it to the Well Society and wider fan base. And even if they do then I would not expect it to be voted through.

Quite simply a few hundred thousand £ per annum is not going to make a material difference to the club. The Well Society and club could probably raise at least half that with renewed focus / fund raising and not hand over any ownership to anyone ! I also think that at that level it would surely draw out other interested parties.

I noted some comments about the fund raising initiative and the Board involvement. Some in my humble opinion are overly harsh and critical unless those that made the comments know exactly what has been happening behind the scenes. 

The Board made it clear that we need outside investment if we are to continue to compete with the majority of clubs in the top flight who do benefit from substantial outside / owner investment on an ongoing basis. That I think we can all agree with. We can debate how much success or otherwise it would bring. Citing examples like Dundee Utd and more recently Queens Park where significant investment has arguably failed to yield any real success. But the fact are we will be one of the very few clubs left that are not subsidised and supported. 

The video was alright. Nothing great but not as bad as many are making out. It did generate interest. And if nothing else the wider football and business community know we are actively seeking investment. I still find it surprising that many clubs have that investment as I would see us a more attractive option. I am naturally biased of course.

If as a result of the video the only real interest for now is Barmack and his offer is as poor as is being quoted then we will continue to be fan owned until an acceptable offer materialises if it ever does. It is as simple as that. 

 

My issue with Dundee United, and reason for citing them is that they appear to be £10m in debt to their investor. Now thats all very well and good as long as the investor doesnt get bored and walk away. But I wouldnt call that a subsidy. These are soft loans.

We owed John Boyle £11m in soft loans when he put us into administration.

I really dont fancy going there again.

[StAndrew7]

13 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

My issue with Dundee United, and reason for citing them is that they appear to be £10m in debt to their investor. Now thats all very well and good as long as the investor doesnt get bored and walk away. But I wouldnt call that a subsidy. These are soft loans.

We owed John Boyle £11m in soft loans when he put us into administration.

I really dont fancy going there again.

This.

It's also been said that any investment we're looking at won't be:

• Anywhere near that amount or "transformational"
• In the form of loans or securities against the club and its assets; it'll be in newly issued shares

I don't think we can compare any potential investment (given our current understanding of what's being discussed) with Dundee United, Hearts, Killie or Queens Park. They're very different models with very different goals and strategies.

From what I can remember, Hearts have something like 25,000 members in the Hearts Foundation and have also spent ~£25 million on their squad over the last 3/4 seasons. 

Edited April 24 by StAndrew7

[Swello]

10 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

My issue with Dundee United, and reason for citing them is that they appear to be £10m in debt to their investor. Now thats all very well and good as long as the investor doesnt get bored and walk away. But I wouldnt call that a subsidy. These are soft loans.

We owed John Boyle £11m in soft loans when he put us into administration.

I really dont fancy going there again.

Agree - debt is debt. We've got one very soft loan from the Scottish Govt but it is still debt repayments - I wouldn't fancy us taking on any more. We had soft loans to Les Hutchinson and John Boyle that we were still paying back up to a couple of years ago - and that was all money that couldn't be spent on the fun stuff. Given the effort to become free from expensive debt was a huge battle since Admin - I would really take some convincing that we would ever go that way again (new stadium mortgage aside I suppose).

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

From what I can remember, Hearts have something like 25,000 members in the Hearts Foundation and have also spent something like £25 million on their squad over the last 3/4 seasons. 

As you say - Hearts are a poor example for us to look at. They are fan-owned but they are getting £5m/year a pumped in also and commercially are in a different league to us. Killie and St Mirren will always be the best example for us to compare against. I'm not convinced that either of them are doing anything radical compared to us - Bowie has put some money into Killie but nothing silly - they both just seem to be well run and have good football managers in place at this moment in time. Weird KVV signing aside, I'm not getting the impression that either of those clubs are fishing in a different pond to us for players/wages (St Mirren's top striker is Mandron, which is a very similar thing to Bair for example) and either of those clubs' squads could conceivably be ours. 

When clubs are very close in terms of size, it doesn't take much to tip the balance and the stark fact is that us paying for *all* the managers at the same time and filling our squad with all sorts of random, un-needed pish over the past few years has had a far bigger effect on our "competitiveness" than Saints or Killie spending a few quid or lunatics pumping money in the Dundee clubs. I honestly wonder how much making up for a fairly incompetent couple of years is behind the suddenly urgent push for outside money/a legacy project.