Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 minutes ago, Well Well said: Wish I had your optimism but thanks for taking the time to reply Ha ha, ask my mates when it comes to Motherwell and optimism is not a word they'd use... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 7 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: Aye I'm pretty skeptical about the proposal stuff (or at least the parts that aren't over my head) but I think it's pretty commendable of EB to come on here or like this. Or someone doing an elaborate bit, which I can also respect. Such an elaborate bit they've hacked his X/Twitter as well then to confirm they are addressing question on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) Why wouldn't you trust this guy to take over our football club? He's signed up to Pie & Bovril to explain himself! f**k me! If this goes through, it'll be an unmitigated disaster. Want investment into the club? Cool. Get on board with a good one. Edited June 10 by Desp 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 27 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said: Was that more aggressive position all of the £834k rather than half as outlined today? (heads up, I already know the answer). Yes, and we discussed why that didn't feel right to the WS Board, which I get. As you know, there's a ton of moving pieces here, and it's not like I'm sitting around thinking that we're right on all issues. Our goal was to first see if we could add value and then to try to balance that value with what seemed fair. There are tons of rational people who could have different POVs on valuation, deal terms like this, and how to grow the Club. We've done our best to present a vision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For Your Pies Only Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 To be fair to Barmack, he's probably kicking himself inside for not offering McMahon magic beans for a 75% share at this point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedrics Mighty Well Army Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 hour ago, Erik Barmack said: I haven't really thought about it. But I would say that I haven't been part of a single business where the structure hasn't morphed over time. And I will also say that we're not keen to jam anything through -- our belief is that our approach would only work if MFC, TWS and stakeholders all feel galvanised by wanting to work together. If the feeling is undemocratic (like something getting is jammed through) or the vibe that we get is that we're framed as dumb, gross Americans who are here to wreck things, then I don't think tweaks/edits/revisions will make sense regardless. If there's a vibe that we're all excited but certain things needs to be improved, then sure -- I think that's part of how you make any organization better. (I realize this is a bit of a non-answer, but I just haven't really thought about your question thoroughly yet.) Would you be prepared to do an informal Q&A with WS members and fans in, say, the Cooper Suite bar? To let us voice our concerns, but also to let you calm the savage breasts. It's always better to look someone straight in the eye. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 4 minutes ago, Cedrics Mighty Well Army said: savage breasts Oh my. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 3 minutes ago, eliphas said: Oh my. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 8 minutes ago, Cedrics Mighty Well Army said: Would you be prepared to do an informal Q&A with WS members and fans in, say, the Cooper Suite bar? To let us voice our concerns, but also to let you calm the savage breasts. It's always better to look someone straight in the eye. Savage beasts ... that's a lot to handle. I'm unfortunately not going to be in Scotland over the next 2-3 weeks, but I would do a Zoom or some other such VC if it's helpful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedrics Mighty Well Army Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, eliphas said: Oh my. Sorry - it's just a thing we gnomes like about lady gnomes. And their beards. (On their chins before you say anything, you mucky pup.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 27 minutes ago, eliphas said: The Barmacks bid in it's current form doesn't work for me so the WS should get a go. But, I'm heavily skeptical there will be something in there that has a route to solid investment and growth and not just ticking over and continuing bucket rattling. Yes, that's a very fair concern but I'd ask what sort of numbers we're looking for here... we're not talking millions to challenge Hearts, it's literally a few hundred k to bring the worst scenario loss into a more comfortable level. The club - with its resources and pull - should always be the driver but I think after our drift post Burrows, there is definitely room to be braver or more innovative in speculating to accumulate off the park. If the Society then contributes even 100k a year to operative business, job done. It's worth remembering that there's barely a single instance in Scottish football when spending money you don't have on the park didn't end in tears. So as hard as it is to see Killie, Dundee or Hibs say, pull away in the short-term while we stand still, history suggests we can be pretty confident they'll pass us going in the other direction soon enough! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedrics Mighty Well Army Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 1 minute ago, Erik Barmack said: I'm unfortunately not going to be in Scotland over the next 2-3 weeks, but I would do a Zoom or some other such VC if it's helpful. I'll happily fly to Oo Ess A! Oo Ess A!! Oo Ess A!!! to meet you. Just forward air fare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 2 hours ago, Erik Barmack said: our belief is that our approach would only work if MFC, TWS and stakeholders all feel galvanised by wanting to work together. I appreciate that I'm asking the wrong party here, but since you're here, why then do YOU think that TWS has come out today so strongly against the proposal in its current form? I'm all for leaving some wriggle room for subsequent discussion/negotiation/compromise, but I'd have thought that fundamental differences like TWS have documented would have been largely addressed before things went public. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Speaking as someone involved in the fan ownership structure at Thistle, credit where it’s due to The Well Society for showing some backbone here. The principle of majority fan ownership is one worth fighting for. Wise investors recognise this and work with it, recognising that this, simply put, means they don’t get to be the largest shareholder and they don’t get to dictate the lion’s share of the Club Board. Fan ownership is a model whereby investors don’t get control. Influence? Fine. Control? No. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: I am sorry but this is weird. I kinda agree. But also fair play to Erik for coming on and trying to justify his interest and proposal. I think this earns some respect and it does from myself. All that said it still does not mean that I nor the majority on here views the terms of the proposed investment favourably. There are still too many red flags imho for it to be a reasonable or fair deal for the Well Society. I like the fact we have outside interest in Motherwell FC. I do think we would benefit from Erik background and expertise and he comes across well. But I still am trying to work out how the Well Society with 71% current shareholding puts forward £850k (proposed) and Wild Sheep £1.25m in 4 years and net effect is the Well Society end up with 46% (25% less) and Wild Sheep 49%. I appreciate there is another 2 years of investment from Wild Sheep on top of that but it does not look like a good deal. Whilst also writing off current loans to the club. If @Erik Barmackcan explain the logic and business sense in this I would love to hear it. Edited June 10 by welldaft 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: Yes, that's a very fair concern but I'd ask what sort of numbers we're looking for here... we're not talking millions to challenge Hearts, it's literally a few hundred k to bring the worst scenario loss into a more comfortable level. The club - with its resources and pull - should always be the driver but I think after our drift post Burrows, there is definitely room to be braver or more innovative in speculating to accumulate off the park. If the Society then contributes even 100k a year to operative business, job done. It's worth remembering that there's barely a single instance in Scottish football when spending money you don't have on the park didn't end in tears. So as hard as it is to see Killie, Dundee or Hibs say, pull away in the short-term while we stand still, history suggests we can be pretty confident they'll pass us going in the other direction soon enough! Hearts have 3X the turnover of us. £20m vs £6.5 If you think a couple of hundred grand is going to close the financial gap between the clubs then you are sorely mistaken. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 From my point of view, I'm not particularly concerned that we need x amount to save us on a very bad year, or x amount to plug a gap so we can match up to some of our peers. To me those are smaller pieces in a bigger strategic puzzle for the clubs future. In a more general strategic sense I guess what I want to see from Motherwell as a club, and the Motherwell owners, is a strategic plan for the club to grow and improve year on year. Not just continue to exist year on year. If we stand still we will continue to slip. That's what I went to see in any WS plan and why I hope the CEO can really be part of creating it. Has to be part of it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said: I appreciate that I'm asking the wrong party here, but since you're here, why then do YOU think that TWS has come out today so strongly against the proposal in its current form? I'm all for leaving some wriggle room for subsequent discussion/negotiation/compromise, but I'd have thought that fundamental differences like TWS have documented would have been largely addressed before things went public. I think this is the crux of the matter for me, too. If there's fundamental issues with the proposal which brings the Society Board to this point, I would question why it's been proposed. Also, I guess we don't know the context of all of this. Caldwell is on the record saying he was at a meeting with the WS discussing the Heads of Terms in his last video in what, the last week of May? Reading the Society's statement, it's quite strongly worded against the outgoing chairman and states clearly they would want to continue to negotiate/potentially work with Wild Sheep Sports in the future: Quote We’re also still open to discussing opportunities further with Wild Sheep Sports, who we’ve found to be engaging and enthusiastic, with skills and experience that would be of benefit to the club in partnership with the Society. I still don't think the proposals value the club (or fan ownership) highly enough for me but there's no reason this needs to be the only negotiation/offer made, but that's up to @Erik Barmackto decide in the event of a "No" vote, which is why I asked that question. I've said here and elsewhere it feels like there could be something there in all of this; for me just not under these terms. Edited June 10 by StAndrew7 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 8 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Hearts have 3X the turnover of us. £20m vs £6.5 If you think a couple of hundred grand is going to close the financial gap between the clubs then you are sorely mistaken. That's exactly what I said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Hearts have 3X the turnover of us. £20m vs £6.5 If you think a couple of hundred grand is going to close the financial gap between the clubs then you are sorely mistaken. I think @Handsome_Devil is saying the investment isn't going to give us the millions we'd need to challenge Hearts, rather that it's only a few hundred grand to plug a gap? Edited June 10 by StAndrew7 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.