Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Vietnam91]

On 14/06/2024 at 02:03, Erik Barmack said:

So ... it's a complicated process that not even keyboard warriors on this board, full of brim and snark, understand.  But sure, direct your focus at 7 drafts (there haven't been seven drafts).

On your bet ... at least, in part, you'd be wrong.

Irony of suggesting my post was snarky with a tetchy reply is not lost.

If anyone hasn’t worked out, Erik and I have spoken at length for months, I also understand I am one of many. The first night we spoke I conveyed “football clubs in the UK have a particular and unique connection with the community. Please be sympathetic to this” and requested “noble intentions only”.

I’ll also make it clear before any accusations are levelled that I explicitly told him all the way though I did not want to know the contents of the offer until it was released publicly despite him offering to share because that was correct. I did not have any privilege to see it in advance of any other rank and file WS member. To be fair he never did…..

However, when I’m asked open questions such as “how much do you think the club is worth?”, answer to then find justification of £4m or less with some weird permutations and ignoring of inconvenient facts I tell him this is dangerous territory to get into trying to erode the value of the club by seemingly tyre kicking it.

When I’m asked about the WS loan and I say it’s sacrosanct, I’m told it needs to be written off in full because it affects additional investors.

When I’m asked what I think would be a fair make up of board seats and told “oh no no that’s impossible” …. You get the picture. It doesn’t take much to get a feel for the ballpark his offer was operating in.

On Monday when I saw it, I was actually lost for words (irony not lost on me), it was so much worse than I expected and I have already steeled myself for it. A 4.5 hour meeting of the WS/CEO weeks before does not suggest everything is rosy. But the reality, well the red mist descended, not gonna lie.

The reason for my accusation, well all the way through this Erik has tested the water, when it meets resistance, he edges it on an inch to see if it that becomes palatable until the inevitable pushback, gauges the lie of the land and it moves again.

Now getting back to the recurring theme of irony, as its a constant theme, the January “Geez yer dosh” video, full of extolling community and supporter owned references, cast with extra’s from a WS member mailer and the recently resigned co-chairman peek-a-booing through a window, Erik submits draft 1. With plans to kill fan ownership, the theme of the video did not sink in evidently.

We were told this at the AGM in mid February that the two offers deemed credible had to come back with better terms as at present they needed changes. Draft 2.

Erik advises, due to my stance and how I articulate my concerns, I have influenced his proposal. Erm …. Cheers? Draft 3

Then there is the 2-3 “bonkers” game at Dens and the Well Bois/Block E 50+1 protest followed by a fruity response on Twitter, that I thought actually made him have a major epiphany. I’m advised of more changes. Draft 4.

Then here in person for the HIbs game, meeting with the Club board and WS board face to face. Draft 5.

After the mammoth May 20th meeting. I don’t know if Erik altered anything, I’d expect that a draft 6 was made off the back of it but I can’t speak to that.

And now after seeing the projected fallout on all social media and forums. Draft 6/7.

As I said, I think because this deal is so unfair and in Erik’s favour there has been so much fat included that Erik’s can throw the odd scrap and get praise from some quarters.

What concerns me this is sold as a spirit of a kind of kumbaya collaboration and some are giving Erik the benefit of the doubt when the reality is he has been told by so many, so often, of red lines and we still got Monday’s offer.

Finally, citing the achievements of a club that seemingly have raised £1m highlights perfectly how money does not equate to success. Unless securing 12th in a league of 18 this past season on 6 points less than finishing equal on points in 2022-23 to a team managed by Si Ferry and Paul “Slaney” Slane is aspirational. …. not a sterling example.

To be considered competent and serious this really can’t descend into a never-ending game of “OK, what about if I do this?”.

Edited Saturday at 12:44 by Vietnam91

[ropy]

1 hour ago, KirkySuperSub said:

Perth Glory ended the season bottom of the table, 4 points adrift, with 69 goals conceded in 27 games...he appears to have played in 24 of those games...

How many clean sheets? 

[Handsome_Devil]

13 hours ago, David1979 said:

In my humble opinion, any revised deal needs to be fundamentally altered on his part, not ours. We do not need to make any improvements on our side. Any proposal he offers must surely include the following:

Either a significantly larger financial investment or an agreement that the Well Society retains a minimum of 51% shareholding. I'm fairly certain that when some Well Society members voted in the online poll expressing a willingness to consider giving up fan ownership for the right deal, they did not envisage a scenario where an investor's financial outlay would be £1.95 million over six years. Meanwhile, the Well Society membership, through increased contributions and writing off 50% of the loan it gave the club, would have a total financial outlay of £1,784,000 over the same six-year period.

For an additional £166,000 from Erik Barmack, we are losing 25% of our shares while he gains 49%.

Surely, a deal cannot be made unless the above terms are fundamentally altered? Agreeing to those conditions would make us the laughing stock of Scottish football. We might as well close the tin-pot thread and declare "Motherwell" as the most tin-pot entity ever seen in our game.

We would become known as the football club that achieved what many others aspire to—being fan-owned—only to discard it for what amounts to the price of a three-bedroom new-build house in Wishaw.

Excellent post.

The only bit I'd personally question is whether any amount of money can justify the risk in the Society dipping below 51% and ceding control to a random. Of course for £5m, £15m, £50m (lol) it becomes more and more tempting but the cynic in me then says an outsider will only offer something like that if they have nefarious intentions.

Edited Saturday at 13:17 by Handsome_Devil

[David1979]

53 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Excellent post.

The only bit I'd personally question is whether any amount of money can justify the risk in the Society dipping below 51% and ceding control to a random. Of course for £5m, £15m, £50m (lol) it becomes more and more tempting but the cynic in me then says an outsider will only offer something like that if they have nefarious intentions.

It would need to be under "extraordinary circumstances" for me to even consider agreeing to vote in favour of losing fan ownership. Perhaps if a Motherwell fan won the lottery or was so wealthy that they were happy to bankroll much of our activities. Even then, I would likely question why they wouldn't support the club while still allowing the Well Society to remain in control.

Essentially, anyone who genuinely has the club's best interests at heart should have no issue with the Society retaining at least 51% control.

I would be very wary of anyone who claims to support fan ownership but doesn't want the Society to maintain majority control. The question then is why? There must be a reason for that.

[Handsome_Devil]

2 minutes ago, David1979 said:

It would need to be under "extraordinary circumstances" for me to even consider agreeing to vote in favour of losing fan ownership. Perhaps if a Motherwell fan won the lottery or was so wealthy that they were happy to bankroll much of our activities. Even then, I would likely question why they wouldn't support the club while still allowing the Well Society to remain in control.

Essentially, anyone who genuinely has the club's best interests at heart should have no issue with the Society retaining at least 51% control.

I would be very wary of anyone who claims to support fan ownership but doesn't want the Society to maintain majority control. The question then is why? There must be a reason for that.

You're a great addition to the forum, I can save myself a tonne of time typing and just copy and paste what you say

Edited Saturday at 14:13 by Handsome_Devil

[CoF]

I’m not convinced this offer, even revised, is going to get chucked out when it goes to a well society vote. I think it probably will, but Im not confident. I can see a scenario where the society board recommends rejecting it, the vote passes it through by a slim margin and we’re left in a bit of a mess. 

Not only would that leave the society board in a fairly untenable position, it could mean the start of the end of the society as a sizeable chunk of members think “what’s the point”. 

I know Eric Barmack as said as much, that this would be the worst case scenario. The offers got to be supported by the majority or not at all and I can’t really see what miraculous changes can be made to sway things that way. 

[MurrayWell]

Theo Bair heading off to the Copa America. Delighted for him and another financial boost for the club. 

 

[Handsome_Devil]

2 minutes ago, CoF said:

I’m not convinced this offer, even revised, is going to get chucked out when it goes to a well society vote. I think it probably will, but Im not confident. I can see a scenario where the society board recommends rejecting it, the vote passes it through by a slim margin and we’re left in a bit of a mess. 

Not only would that leave the society board in a fairly untenable position, it could mean the start of the end of the society as a sizeable chunk of members think “what’s the point”. 

I know Eric Barmack as said as much, that this would be the worst case scenario. The offers got to be supported by the majority or not at all and I can’t really see what miraculous changes can be made to sway things that way. 

It's certainly a possibility which is why I'm coming round to the suggested idea that the WS should just postpone the whole thing.

They'd be entirely justified in doing so given, in no particular order:

The WS board thinks the bid is comical.

The EB has two folk on it who shouldn't be.

The outgoing chairman is essentially a lame duck.

The WS board has positions needing filled.

Barmack has already said he's going to revise the bid - who do we want him discussing things with in the circumstances? (and @Vietnam91 probably isn't a viable option!)

We are in no rush to do this and can only do it once... let's take a deep breath, get our own internal governance in order and approach it calmly and freshly before we risk doing something we regret.

[Vietnam91]

You omitted the WS has nobody on the executive board they can trust to convey to them what the club board is doing, how votes are going and if there is any dissent among the 5 current directors espeically one who has been working as essentially a sleeper agent ...... more on that later.

I've also had 4 months of banging my head against brick wall with him. There's only so much of debating the grass is blue and sky is green before your brain fries.

Edited Saturday at 16:13 by Vietnam91

[MurrayWell]

My summary of the last week or so, McMahon said he'd be gone by now, still determined to get things his own way. 

As @Handsome Devil said, we need the right person negotiating any new/revised offer. I'm struggling to see what McMahon and Co are bringing at the moment, other than a consistent undermining of the fan ownership model. 

Edited Saturday at 15:31 by MurrayWell

[eliphas]

44 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

Theo Bair heading off to the Copa America. Delighted for him and another financial boost for the club. 

 

Delightful.  

He might not feature, hopefully he does, but if he does, aave we had someone play in the Copa America before? 

[Alanos]

Aberdeen

THE FOLLOWING PLAYERS WILL LEAVE WITH THEIR CONTRACT EXPIRING

Connor Barron
Anthony Stewart
Jonny Hayes
Kelle Roos
Kieran Ngwenya

Finlay Murray
Kai Watson
Aaron Reid
Chris Kondolo
Reuben Smillie

THE FOLLOWING PLAYERS’ LOAN PERIODS ARE COMING TO AN END

Stefan Gartenmann
Killian Phillips

THE FOLLOWING PLAYER HAS BEEN OFFERED A CONTRACT WITH AFC 

Junior Hoilett

[David1979]

1 hour ago, Handsome_Devil said:

It's certainly a possibility which is why I'm coming round to the suggested idea that the WS should just postpone the whole thing.

They'd be entirely justified in doing so given, in no particular order:

The WS board thinks the bid is comical.

The EB has two folk on it who shouldn't be.

The outgoing chairman is essentially a lame duck.

The WS board has positions needing filled.

Barmack has already said he's going to revise the bid - who do we want him discussing things with in the circumstances? (and @Vietnam91 probably isn't a viable option!)

We are in no rush to do this and can only do it once... let's take a deep breath, get our own internal governance in order and approach it calmly and freshly before we risk doing something we regret.

Absolutely.

I believe this situation has actually been beneficial because it has brought to light serious governance issues within the club that urgently need addressing.

In my view, the relationship between the executive and society boards requires a complete overhaul. The Well Society represents the majority ownership of the club, and it's unusual to witness majority owners in any business treated with what appears to be such disregard.

All these issues must be resolved before we even consider any investment offer, especially one that would bring such a significant change to the club's ownership structure.

In my opinion, the focus should soon shift from EB's proposal to scheduling new board member elections, discussing who will represent the society on the executive board, and addressing the situation regarding the chairman himself.

Only once these matters are sorted can we confidently engage with EB to explore what he may have to offer, if anything.

[Swello]

2 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

The EB has two folk on it who shouldn't be.

Yeh - the competence of the current exec board to actually make any decisions on this, or any other deal is a genuine and serious point. 

Who is actually able to vote - and in the case of the WS seats, who is empowering them to do so?

It's extremely common in business for outgoing senior people to be recused from making/influencing major decisions (ie, Gardening leave) and I'm not entirely clear why someone who has resigned is still calling the shots.

I fully agree with others that have said it - we should get our house in order before going ahead with *any* major decision.

Edited Saturday at 17:19 by Swello

[steelmen]

Is dickie on the executive board as part of the well society or in his own right? Going by the comments on here I’m guessing the answer is via the society, in that case what right does he have to stay on the executive board.

Feely, whilst I believe his position is untenable, still has the right to be there as he’s not resigned (should have though). Add in that McMahon is stepping down, he should be nowhere near this shitshow he started! The whole situation is a mess and the time of year only complicates it.

 

As others have said much more eloquently than I will. This whole investment deal has to be paused, assuming EB is willing, to allow a new board appointed for the club and the society to get new members appointed. Then and only then can we negotiate properly with EB, with the society at the heart of the negotiations this time.

 

if EB is willing to wait, its says he might be someone to listen to. If not, thanks but no thanks.

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, Swello said:

Yeh - the competence of the current exec board to actually make any decisions on this, or any other deal is a genuine and serious point. 

Who is actually able to vote - and in the case of the WS seats, who is empowering them to do so?

It's extremely common in business for outgoing senior people to be recused from making/influencing major decisions (ie, Gardening leave) and I'm not entirely clear why someone who has resigned is still calling the shots.

I fully agree with others that have said it - we should get our house in order before going ahead with *any* major decision.

I get that it's very much a stable door/horse/bolted situation but this is an entirely serious question about precisely why and how McMahon was allowed to instigate this whole shitshow in the first place.

He had announced his intention to step down (18th December 2023) before the roll out of his great "investment" wheeze.

Given the state of flux at the time (as we also had an interim CEO who had stayed in position long after he had intended) why was McMahon allowed to set this whole thing in motion?

I mean, seriously, it's gone from a "fund raising initiative" (in McMahon's words) to him being absolutely fine with handing over half the club to a total random and the WS losing its majority shareholding not to mention everything else that's clearly wrong with the deal on the table.

It's fucking insane.

Edited Saturday at 19:12 by capt_oats

[Ill Ray]

It’s been too long without a Liam Kelly update IMHO

[YassinMoutaouakil]

Aside from the specifics of the deal which seem eh... not great, I was a bit more positive when I knew less about Barmack's apparent skillset that he was going to bring to us. The Australian consortium- or whatever it was- was clearly sketchy enough to not even make it to this point, but I could sort of see the logic in an improved scouting/player trading model- it sounds similar to what has helped diddy clubs punch above their weight in similar leagues around Europe.

Obviously in a vacuum the £300k p/a etc would be welcome if nothing else but the stuff about AI, celebrities, and international fans really just sounds gimmicky at best.

Edited Saturday at 19:57 by YassinMoutaouakil

[David1979]

9 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

Obviously in a vacuum the £300k p/a etc would be welcome if nothing else but the stuff about AI, celebrities, and international fans really just sounds gimmicky at best.

What he's proposed sounds interesting to me. Could it work? Possibly. However, I wouldn't stake our future on it.

Barmack's proposal could be integrated into a deal where he provides a certain amount of capital each year in exchange for the opportunity to work with us as a testing ground. We could then arrange for him to receive a substantial return if his initiatives prove successful—something more incentive-driven, perhaps? There's a lot of different ways that could be approached.

But losing fan ownership over it? Absolutely insane.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

7 minutes ago, David1979 said:

What he's proposed sounds interesting to me. Could it work? Possibly. However, I wouldn't stake our future on it.

Barmack's proposal could be integrated into a deal where he provides a certain amount of capital each year in exchange for the opportunity to work with us as a testing ground. We could then arrange for him to receive a substantial return if his initiatives prove successful—something more incentive-driven, perhaps? There's a lot of different ways that could be approached.

But losing fan ownership over it? Absolutely insane.

Aye it's taken me a few days to get to this point and I still wouldn't say I'm a fan ownership absolutist but in this case what we're potentially gaining absolutely doesn't weigh up with what we're being asked to give up. Which itself is obviously fucking miles away from what we were apparently initially soliciting for in the quirky video.