Alanos Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Nothing new there. Must be more to come on changes to the deal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoF Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I really, really wish they’d stop trying to redefine the term “fan ownership”. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedrics Mighty Well Army Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 For the second half of the statement one requires to turn over the piece of paper it's written on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Tldr: we think you're stupid, let's end fan ownership for a pittance. The Society should, this week, say there's no vote happening, let's restock both boards and start afresh with EB to see if any practical solution can be found. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Very condescending statement, reeks of 'we know best, so shut up and let us do what we want' 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 32 minutes ago, Swami said: Moving a home game against the Old Firm to Wembley? Yes and ho! I would give that five greenies if I could. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For Your Pies Only Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) The whole 'we've actually overvalued the club at £4M' is such breathtaking nonsense - I'm by no means an expert but have enough knowledge of loans, interest and commercial accounting from my own job to know clearly manufactured sh*te when I see it. Underpinning it all on the covid loan also seems incredibly convenient - and sudden, as those accounting 'complexities' for our debt seem largely absent from our signed off accounts post 2021? Unless I'm missing something? Completely unrelated, I just got a text from a pal that works at HMRC who suggested the board should be careful about their next audit with such a huge change in valuation figures year to year... If @capt_oats hadn't posted that Limmy gif already, I'd be putting it here. A ridiculous attempt at twisting the narrative by the exec board. Edited June 19 by For Your Pies Only 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 That statement says that it is Barmack + 2 other board members of his choosing. Is that a change? I thought it was Team Barmack 4, The Rest 4 (2 'WS + Finance Director + CEO) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'WellDel Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Well that's a whole big pile of doubling down and nothing really new. Just the original statement padded out with even more words, 'we know best' vibes and condescension overload. Wheres the Wally/Erik with his shiny new improved terms? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boozyBJ Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I don’t have the intelligence or patience to read these large statements, or indeed the long winded posts on here, but I take it nothings really changed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, boozyBJ said: I don’t have the intelligence or patience to read these large statements, or indeed the long winded posts on here, but I take it nothings really changed? See @capt_oats GIF posted above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boozyBJ Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, StAndrew7 said: See @capt_oats GIF posted above. Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For Your Pies Only Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Also, 'we can't rely on transfer funds in our financial model' (umm, it's worked well so far) swiftly followed by 'transfer funds will be used to reduce the cost of the 'safeguard' buyback option' - what can you say about mental gymnastics like that? Madness. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, boozyBJ said: I don’t have the intelligence or patience to read these large statements, or indeed the long winded posts on here, but I take it nothings really changed? tl;dr Many words from both sides in the last week, most of it waffle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkySuperSub Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, boozyBJ said: I don’t have the intelligence or patience to read these large statements, or indeed the long winded posts on here, but I take it nothings really changed? I'm waiting for the @Vietnam91 Match Of The Day-esque analysis commentary... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesP_81 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 That's just the original statement but said slower and louder is it not? 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellboy1991 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Don’t even know where to start with that pish statement tbh. The tone was set early with the whole, ‘well you said it was too long, but want more info and now we are going to make it even longer’ pish. Then follow that up with beware it’s long and it’s technical for your stupid little minds. Comes across as angry, patronising and condescending. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Just now, JamesP_81 said: That's just the original statement but said slower and louder is it not? With fewer details. e.g. there's nothing about Barmack receiving Chairman status for £330k, which is a huge concern of many of the fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Full lengthy statement because @Vietnam91has them rattled. Exceptional work. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standupforthemotherwell Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 From Erik's words on here, it seemed we would see some concessions in favour of the society so either he has not taken that forward, or the board have decided the original version was better and rejected the change. The biggest issue for me is the assumption that the remaining non WS or EB shareholders would be aligned with the society and that this constitutes fan ownership. It has been obvious from the last week that some of our biggest individual shareholders are aligned with themselves only. 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.