steelmen Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 @Erik Barmack As posted earlier, just in case you missed it The Well Society have to commit to investing £850k over 4 years which is only £400k less than the Barmacks' investment. In return we see our shareholding decrease significantly while you pick up half the club. As a business man surely this makes zero sense? What if the Society can't make those payments? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 The Well Society could not even raise two teams and any cash from the recent 'play at Fir Park' event and had to bring in ex well players and cut the cost of playing to try to drum up interest. You will forgive me if I don't have any hope in them raising any serious funding. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 4 minutes ago, ML4 said: Sorry Erik, but pull the other one on the “cleaner balance sheet”. The Society are an exceptionally friendly creditor - and a secured one at that against the stadium and land. It is exceptionally more advantageous to the safe future of the club that the Society have as large a debt as possible owed for if - for example - a third party runs the business in a detrimental manner. They should permanently be the highest secured creditor. I agree with you if the Club doesn't want or need future investment down the road. And if we knew that for certain, the debt staying on the books would be irrelevant. The only reason why I've pushed on this particular item is in the case where the Club may want more options. Just as an example, I understand that a lot of protesters (who have told me to go into a "bin") don't like the valuation of the Club at (roughly) 4m pounds. But an investor is actually looking as total assets and liabilities, which includes govt debt that was taken out during Covid and the TWS loan. So, if you have less debt your valuation per shareholder increases, and you have more flexibility to raise capital. That's the reason for working on that point -- it may not be worth the certainty that you give up as a TWS member to say, "We have a hold on this," which I get, but that's the logic behind it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standupforthemotherwell Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I feel there are a couple of changes which would make the proposal much more palatable. If the well society was left with no less than 50% of the shareholding, it would go a long way to easing my concerns as nothing could be forced through. Additionally I think either the loan should remain in place or be repaid with the profits from transfers or the new commercial opportunities which should present themselves. This then leaves funding available should a future opportunity come to buy back a portion of the shareholding or provide an emergency loan again (like the original intention of the society). I don't agree with it just being written off when it has taken a lot of effort to raise that cash in the first place for a specific purpose. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 21 minutes ago, steelmen said: @Erik Barmack As posted earlier, just in case you missed it The Well Society have to commit to investing £850k over 4 years which is only £400k less than the Barmacks' investment. In return we see our shareholding decrease significantly while you pick up half the club. As a business man surely this makes zero sense? What if the Society can't make those payments? I think one of the bigger opportunities here -- and this may be the area where I have the widest disagreement with current stakeholders -- is that TWS could be much bigger and more global. The Caledonian Braves, which currently sit in the fifth division in Scotland, I think, have raised over 1m pounds this year, but their aim has been really geared toward international fans. By the way, their home field is in Motherwell, so it's an interesting comp. But yeah, if we think that the steady state will apply, and the overall Club won't grow, and TWS won't grow through a clever and coordinated media strategy, I would have those concerns, too. And I don't think I'd bother with this proposal. On the other hand, there is a provision in our deal that would allow TWS to buy us out for ANY REASON in two years, and while I share the concerns drafted in TWS's response to the proposal, it's also true that there's a provision to use a percentage of player sales to protect TWS in the case that it DOES want to buy us out, and I think objective fans can see that there are several players of value on the roster who are likely to move on in the coming years. All of which is to say that, if you don't believe revenue can grow through this approach, I'd vote no. And even if you do believe that we can grow revenue, I believe that our feet will be to the fire to prove it, or our call option would be triggered. Edited June 10 by Erik Barmack 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 18 minutes ago, Ill Ray said: It’s pretty cool Erik is talking to us man. The financials are above me but as a person I get good vibes from Erik Barmack. I contribute to the Well Society and am currently on the fence and see pros and cons on both sides but very refreshing to see some dialogue here with some tough questions being asked. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 5 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said: I feel there are a couple of changes which would make the proposal much more palatable. If the well society was left with no less than 50% of the shareholding, it would go a long way to easing my concerns as nothing could be forced through. Additionally I think either the loan should remain in place or be repaid with the profits from transfers or the new commercial opportunities which should present themselves. This then leaves funding available should a future opportunity come to buy back a portion of the shareholding or provide an emergency loan again (like the original intention of the society). I don't agree with it just being written off when it has taken a lot of effort to raise that cash in the first place for a specific purpose. These are fair points and I get both of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 39 minutes ago, Muzz1886 said: Of course. I can only judge a horse with the races ran so far. Hence my scepticism. It's literally done everything it set out to do, it's provided a safety net when needed and we're comfortably in the black over a near decade of fan ownership. It's more than earned the chance to develop a new business model and be given time to do so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Ray Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: Announce one monorail running through the Cross to Glasgow Central and I’m in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: It's literally done everything it set out to do, it's provided a safety net when needed and we're comfortably in the black over a near decade of fan ownership. It's more than earned the chance to develop a new business model and be given time to do so. Its only ever been a safety net nothing more adventurous. how long has it had so far...??..not inspiring confidence really that they can come up with a plan. I refer you to my earlier post re 'play at fir park' which ended up a bust. Edited June 10 by Well Well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 23 minutes ago, Ill Ray said: It’s pretty cool Erik is talking to us man. The financials are above me but as a person I get good vibes from Erik Barmack. You do understand why a lot of us will need a whole lot more than 'good vibes' to hand over control of the club to him? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said: I think one of the bigger opportunities here -- and this may be the area where I have the widest disagreement with current stakeholders -- is that TWS could be much bigger and more global. The Caledonian Braves, which currently sit in the fifth division in Scotland, I think, have raised over 1m pounds this year, but there aim has been really geared toward international fans. By the way, their home field is in Motherwell, so it's an interesting comp. But yeah, if we think that the steady state will apply, and the overall Club won't grow, and TWS won't grow through a clever and coordinated media strategy, I would have those concerns, too. And I don't think I'd bother with this proposal. On the other hand, there is a provision in our deal that would allow TWS to buy us out for ANY REASON in two years, and while I share the concerns drafted in TWS's response to the proposal, it's also true that there's a provision to use a percentage of player sales to protect TWS in the case that it DOES want to buy us out, and I think objective fans can see that there are several players of value on the roster who are likely to move on in the coming years. All of which is to say that, if you don't believe revenue can grow through this approach, I'd vote no. And even if you do believe that we can grow revenue, I believe that our feet will be to the fire to prove it, or our call option would be triggered. Appreciate the reply, but doesn't really answer either question. Why are we putting in just £400k less over 6 years and we lose 30% of our shareholding whilst handing overall control to someone who has never run a club before and what happens if we can't meet that obligation. Player sales are great but we have had some really good players down the years who have walked away for next to nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, Well Well said: how long has it had so far...??..not inspiring confidence really. In the eight or nine years of fan ownership we've been in two cup finals, Europe twice, only been in serious relegation danger once and made millions from player sales to leave us comfortably in profit. What would it have taken to inspire your confidence?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said: That is effectively what we've tried to do. Come on Erik. We weren't born yesterday. If you wanted to propose a 50+1 model you would have done it. 46% is not 50+1% and I think we all see the critical difference. Trying to invoke German models when that is not what is on the table is very dishonest. Edited June 10 by Jim McLean's Ghost 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Ray Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, camer0n_mcd said: You do understand why a lot of us will need a whole lot more than 'good vibes' to hand over control of the club to him? Hence the second paragraph about dialogue? I’m not saying I’m decided yet either just that it’s rare to get this kind of conversation between fans and investor in a forum like this tbh. If I had a question it would be with investment what would fans see done differently to improve the club? @Erik Barmack Would we just do what we do with just (assumingly) more money? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Just now, Handsome_Devil said: In the eight or nine years of fan ownership we've been in two cup finals, Europe twice, only been in serious relegation danger once and made millions from player sales to leave us comfortably in profit. What would it have taken to inspire your confidence?! I believe the financial outlook from the club was ok for next season but after that is up in the air hence the need for inward investment. Hardly comfortably in profit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 5 minutes ago, Well Well said: I believe the financial outlook from the club was ok for next season but after that is up in the air hence the need for inward investment. Hardly comfortably in profit. The club that's just valued itself at £4m? Their financial outlook? OK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 minutes ago, steelmen said: Appreciate the reply, but doesn't really answer either question. Why are we putting in just £400k less over 6 years and we lose 30% of our shareholding whilst handing overall control to someone who has never run a club before and what happens if we can't meet that obligation. Player sales are great but we have had some really good players down the years who have walked away for next to nothing. You would do it if you feel like the overall business (in this case, the Club) would be more valuable than the path you're pursuing without investment. That has to be the main (only) reason. With increased capital, are you more likely to build infrastructure? Grow revenue? Find new media/marketing opportunities? Attract personalities to the Club in adjacent spaces who might not have otherwise been interested? Like many of you here, I don't really accept the gloom-and-doom component of "outside investment" -- that MFC needs to take outside investment or else ... I DO believe that the SPFL is becoming more competitive, that investment will flow into other teams, and that MFC can't assume that the status quo persists, because it never does. But I think you do it if you believe that the overall pie grows, and so having a smaller piece of a bigger thing is better. That's subjective, of course, but that has to be the reasoning. * Just one other thing to touch on here, because it's come up a few times. You mentioned us turning over overall control to someone who has never run a club before. I largely agree that MFC should not do it. Brian Caldwell and others are very capable executives, and our thesis here isn't us being Americans playing Football Manager on steroids. It's that we see our skillsets as being complimentary to people who know a lot more about football than we do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 9 minutes ago, Ill Ray said: Hence the second paragraph about dialogue? I’m not saying I’m decided yet either just that it’s rare to get this kind of conversation between fans and investor in a forum like this tbh. If I had a question it would be with investment what would fans see done differently to improve the club? @Erik Barmack Would we just do what we do with just (assumingly) more money? Ill Ray, I'm not sure if I totally get your question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambunctious Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Erik Barmack said: Hey, I'll chime in here as a long-time reader, but first-time poster, and I didn't really feel like it was appropriate to wade into the conversation until people had a chance to read what's been proposed. I don't want to clog up space here, but am happy to answer questions, and I also will respond to emails (erik@wildsheepcontent.com) provided that said emails aren't, "Why aren't you in a bin yet?" As a top-line thought, I want to share that we've worked on this because we think it can help grow MFC. And that the conditions/levers on this particular opportunity are quite difficult to figure out -- fan-ownership, valuation, investment needed, cultural fit, and our own personal hopes/desires as a family all needed to be balanced. I will say, from our side, this a (potential) emotional investment, not a purely financial one, and so the key question for us is, "Would the Club be better off in six years with this kind of hybrid structure in place?" If the answer is no, I'm still going to root for MFC and will join TWS. I do also want to add that both the MFC and TWS Boards have been generous with us in trying to find common ground, and I believe those with whom I've spent time can vouch that we do care about trying to improve the Club. So, if helpful, I'm here if there are questions I can answer and hope that the context above is helpful. Erik Pakora. Yay or nay? 3 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.