Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 55 minutes ago, Muzz1886 said: TLDR - we're skint and I'm grumpy. We have been profitable over cumulatively over the last 3 years. Which includes acounts where we were badly effected by Covid. So IDK what to tell you. We also made major upgrades to the ground and facilities of the club The financial position is not the thing to be grumpy about, it is the performances on the park that are troubling. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said: I noticed the WS vote was 6-3 which I was surprised at. Is there an overlap between the club board and the WS board? Is it the same folk trying to push it through on both? Douglas Dickie and Tam Feely were both on the WS and Executive boards. Dickie has resigned from the WS board and I assume by default the Executive board... As for the other one, I'm not sure. You can probably rule out Derek Watson, Jay (the lad that sometimes posts on here), Amber Johnstone and Philip Speedie based on their twitter's That leaves Markus Schieren and Maureen Downie as the other members of the Society board that could have voted for it. Edited June 10 by camer0n_mcd 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMotherwell1 Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 I would vote no to the current proposal. That being said, I do think it is clear that the Barmacks are well intentioned and could clearly bring valuable experience and skillsets to the club. However, not at the expense of the WS' majority stake. This whole process has highlighted the complete lack of coherent thinking between the WS Board and Exec Board. Neither board emerges from the debacle looking very good in my opinion. The best way for a club our size to progress sustainably would be by modernising & improving our football department. Realistically, we could be receiving between £3-4 million in transfer fees this summer. The club should be strategising how these funds can be reinvested to move us forward. A complete recruitment overhaul led by an experienced football person (probably a Director of Football) would be as good a place to start as any. An improved player trading model & the proven quality of our Academy would see us fine. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 4 hours ago, TheMotherwell1 said: I would vote no to the current proposal. That being said, I do think it is clear that the Barmacks are well intentioned and could clearly bring valuable experience and skillsets to the club. However, not at the expense of the WS' majority stake. This whole process has highlighted the complete lack of coherent thinking between the WS Board and Exec Board. Neither board emerges from the debacle looking very good in my opinion. I think they're probably well-intentioned now too but there's a saying about the road to hell. Actions speak louder than words and if EB was offering his (modest) financial investment alongside his (apparent) energy and (considerable) expertise while leaving the Society on 51%, I imagine most folk would be delighted in principle. There'd no doubt be haggling over numbers but you'd expect a deal to be done. However, regardless of the nice chat, the fact is he wants immediate control of the club for the price of Ben Heneghan, and to pay just over half the the value for the club (which most of us dispute) with the Society funding the rest in an arrangement which sees it lose relevance at best and in practice probably go out of existence. Regardless of what you think of the Society, handing over the club to a random on the other side of the world for a pittance is insane. Edit to add, re the board, agree... I suspect the newcomers on the Society were too trusting to the old guys and didn't quite feel they could demand resignations immediately...as a counterfactual, imagine they'd heard this wheeze from McMahon, Feeley and Dickie but used the club AGM to kill it and replace them. Rightly or wrongly, they would have been accused of massively overstepping three months after being elected, why don't we just hear what they have to say etc. The Brexit comment is a good one mind, there's definitely caution against complacency in handing the electorate two options and thinking you're safe just because one of them is fucking stupid. Edited June 11 by Handsome_Devil 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLIS Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) Anyone asked the lad if he fancies buying Livi instead? I don't think it can get any worse for us given the last year or so, with the fighting over who actually owns the club Edited June 11 by ATLIS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gianfranco Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 That bloody video has got a lot to answer for. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 He lost me at “y’all” 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellin Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 10 hours ago, Busta Nut said: I think this has been massively exaggerated by the folk who were never fans of the WS. Im a well society member and I think we need a cash investment. Edited to say that doesn't mean I'm going to vote yes to this but I think this debate has got a bit polarised in that people are either seen as pro or anti fan investment depending on their views about outside investment. It's surely possible to support the well society and not be completely closed to the possibility of outside investment. Edited June 11 by Wellin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Let's announce these two players eh? Also, Slattery. Just any news that's not Liam Kelly putting out the cones at Scotland's training camp or investment chat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillips455 Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 If this was the only "reasonable" offer that we recieved, imagine what the other offers were like! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbybingo Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 8 hours ago, camer0n_mcd said: Douglas Dickie and Tam Feely were both on the WS and Executive boards. Dickie has resigned from the WS board and I assume by default the Executive board... As for the other one, I'm not sure. You can probably rule out Derek Watson, Jay (the lad that sometimes posts on here), Amber Johnstone and Philip Speedie based on their twitter's That leaves Markus Schieren and Maureen Downie as the other members of the Society board that could have voted for it. You can rule out Markus Shieren. From Facebook: "Whoever thinks this deal is good to go needs to have a hard look at themselves" Edited June 11 by Bobbybingo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 I suppose what I'd want to put to @Erik Barmack is what the sheep are bringing to the table if it's not just money. Totally understand that nobody invests in a football club without wanting something out of it. From the initial look at what the WS put out http://thewellsociety.uk/ it does seem a bit of a nonsense. Valuing the entire club for less than one of Lennon Miller's legs seems like a pretty low ball offer. The way this reads to me is that The Well Society need to put as much cash in as Barmack but sign over the ownership of the club to Wild Sheep Sports eventually. This seems like the fans are getting saddled with the risk here. So if this were to be Dragon's Den (Shark Tank if you're American) and we're giving over a huge chunk of our company. ~£320k a year kind of seems like it'll make a wee dent in some of the running costs but nothing that will help us be competitive. What are we getting in return if we bring in Wild Sheep that might help us progress? Ideally it would be cool if we could see something similar to the WS document from the other side to explain. Side note: I don't think EB's a bad guy. I'm just extremely sceptical about how this could be a good thing. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 34 minutes ago, Wellin said: Im a well society member and I think we need a cash investment. Edited to say that doesn't mean I'm going to vote yes to this but I think this debate has got a bit polarised in that people are either seen as pro or anti fan investment depending on their views about outside investment. It's surely possible to support the well society and not be completely closed to the possibility of outside investment. I don't think many people are completely against outside investment tbf. That's not to say none, ofc, but I think there's broad consensus that external cash and expertise with the Society retaining the majority shareholding is the ideal solution. Personally I've always said I liked the sound of EB (other former media executives presumably available ) in comparison to the Aussie bid which didn't seem remotely viable. But also that 99% of my interest about investment wasn't what we were getting but what we were giving up. And what we're being asked to give up is massive in exchange for very little. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 29 minutes ago, Wellin said: Im a well society member and I think we need a cash investment. Edited to say that doesn't mean I'm going to vote yes to this but I think this debate has got a bit polarised in that people are either seen as pro or anti fan investment depending on their views about outside investment. It's surely possible to support the well society and not be completely closed to the possibility of outside investment. When asked, Well society members voted strongly to listen to outside investment proposals - so people are open to offers. The idea of the WS losing the majority stake (and effectively becoming obsolete in the process) has been a red line for a lot of people and they have been consistent in that. It's not black and white that all investment is bad but my guess is that it would take a far higher financial offer (or some very different terms) to make the margins for and against to be much closer. Non-WS members may have a completely different viewpoint and welcome outside investment in all circumstances, which is also fine as their view is as good as anyone else's - but right now, the WS is main representative body for our core support and requires to accept the deal for it to happen - which has the benefit of having some democracy involved and underlines the entire point of fan ownership. Also - by Motherwell support standards, I don't think this is that polarised - it's certainly no "was Stuart McCall a good manager?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 14 minutes ago, Bobbybingo said: You can rule out Markus Shieren. From Facebook: "Whoever thinks this deal is good to go needs to have a hard look at themselves" Thanks, I hadn't seen that. With that you could reasonably say that the 3 the voted for the proposal are Maureen Downie, Tam Feely and Douglas Dickie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desp Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 8 minutes ago, Swello said: it's certainly no "was Stuart McCall a good manager?" 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 I would be positive about this new direction but - the financials don’t look right - I don’t understand the need to dilute the WS share holding (to that extent) and its bank balance The WS should be seen as the friendliest of business partners and not a threat to a new investor. The WS should keep the new guy honest. I don’t understand the arithmetic of the share movements but an end game of WS 55%, Sheep 35%, Others 10% would look good to me. Why are the protections for 6 years, why not forever or until a vote changes them? What is the exit strategy for EB whether that be in 6 years, 10 years or 20? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 6 minutes ago, ropy said: What is the exit strategy for EB whether that be in 6 years, 10 years or 20? The letter from him and his wife on the club website says they'd be looking to source/bring in additional investors and in the process dilute their own shareholding; I would imagine the plan is to add revenue and value to the club and sell those shares for a higher price than they paid? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MP_MFC Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 It comes down to this for me: EB seems genuine, well-intentioned and the ambitions are commendable to me and the prospect attractive but the bid in it's current form is a non-starter and should never have got this far without some serious revisions, most of them have been discussed at varying degrees on here. I would hope that there is room for further negotiation down the line once this is voted down (assuming it is) and TWS have more involvement in it from the start with some of the shackles from their former board members and our departing chairman off. I would hope that the Barmack's are true to their word in that they plan on joining TWS regardless and could bring some of what they propose back to the table but I guess it depends on what money making is desired. Scottish football, simply put, outside of the big two, is not a profitable enterprise and never will be - you either get it or you don't, my impression is EB is halfway there and hopefully whatever way this goes, is open to going further. Tl;dr - The Barmack's seem like good people, the outgoing board members are a joke and a massive overhaul is needed and those who intend to not be here long term need to get gone. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) So is Dickie doing a Douglas Ross and Clinging on to one of his roles rather than vacate them all? Edited June 11 by Busta Nut 2 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.