steelmen Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 26 minutes ago, David1979 said: So, I finally got some time to read the lengthy announcement by the club, and figured I'd post my thoughts. The club board's statement fails to address the core issues surrounding Erik Barmack's investment proposal adequately. Despite claims of transparency and the promise of detailed information, Barmack himself has admitted that he only possesses a fraction of the necessary data to formulate a robust business plan. This raises serious concerns about the thoroughness and preparedness of this investment proposal. The absence of a detailed business plan, which should have been a prerequisite for consideration, leaves us with significant uncertainty. The club's valuation, heavily contested by supporters, appears based on speculative and incomplete data, further undermining confidence in the proposed deal. A valuation of £4m, justified through questionable adjustments and assumptions, does not align with the reality of our club's assets and potential. The club board's argument that public meetings are impractical due to the number of voters is a weak excuse for avoiding direct engagement. Written statements cannot substitute for the dynamic exchange of a public forum, where questions can be answered in real-time, and accountability is immediate. The assertion that the club is not in imminent financial difficulty contradicts the rationale for seeking investment. If the club’s finances are stable, as claimed, why is there a sudden push to bring in external investors? This inconsistency is troubling and suggests either financial mismanagement or a hidden agenda. The claim that issuing new shares to Erik Barmack, while also offering shares to the Well Society and other shareholders, will preserve fan ownership is misleading. The staged investment over six years, culminating in Barmack owning 49% of the shares, effectively hands over substantial control, if not a majority, and risks undermining the very foundation of fan ownership. The board's confidence in the safeguards against asset stripping is unconvincing. The supposed protections do little to alleviate concerns about long-term control and influence over club assets, including Fir Park. Finally, the proposed board structure, even with assurances of balanced representation, does not guarantee that fan interests will be safeguarded. The potential for conflicts of interest and undue influence remains high, particularly with Barmack appointing two of his own to the board. It is imperative, in my opinion, that the board halts this process until a full, detailed business plan is presented and subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The future of our club and the principle of fan ownership are too important to be compromised by incomplete and inadequately supported proposals. Excellent post as usual. For the part in bold, this just feels like its McMahon's legacy. He wants to leave the board with a new CEO in place and the clubs future assured. I am sure he wants what's best for the club and that this offer is the best of the bunch BUT I do think he is blinkered by the fact he is stepping down. The whole video was his pet project (and probably cost as much as EB is putting in this season), You could see that Weir was uncomfortable with it and didn't agree with its message. We need the Society board to come out and put a pause to this until they get their house in order. I want it binned but that can't really happen, now the club board have told the society to hold one. It would cause issues if the society just cancelled it. Rushing it through at the start of July is not an option. esp if EB is tweaking it. Only once the Society board are back up to full strength, the club board has been sorted out (Dickie replaced, McMahon retired) can the process be restarted. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 12 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: So what have we still got on the shopping list? A left back. A goalkeeper The big Serb And a centre half for cover That's not a bad position to be in 3 weeks before the league cup starts. I'd argue we need two left backs, personally. Particularly with the system that we play. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowsdower Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Yep, with the importance we put on our wing backs, and how much running they're expected to do, we definitely need 2 viable LWBs. Wilson could potentially be one of them I guess, with Sam N as an emergency backup. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 39 minutes ago, capt_oats said: I see the subliminal messaging about Oli Shaw’s resigning has started. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 53 minutes ago, David1979 said: So, I finally got some time to read the lengthy announcement by the club, and figured I'd post my thoughts. The club board's statement fails to address the core issues surrounding Erik Barmack's investment proposal adequately. Despite claims of transparency and the promise of detailed information, Barmack himself has admitted that he only possesses a fraction of the necessary data to formulate a robust business plan. This raises serious concerns about the thoroughness and preparedness of this investment proposal. The absence of a detailed business plan, which should have been a prerequisite for consideration, leaves us with significant uncertainty. The club's valuation, heavily contested by supporters, appears based on speculative and incomplete data, further undermining confidence in the proposed deal. A valuation of £4m, justified through questionable adjustments and assumptions, does not align with the reality of our club's assets and potential. The club board's argument that public meetings are impractical due to the number of voters is a weak excuse for avoiding direct engagement. Written statements cannot substitute for the dynamic exchange of a public forum, where questions can be answered in real-time, and accountability is immediate. The assertion that the club is not in imminent financial difficulty contradicts the rationale for seeking investment. If the club’s finances are stable, as claimed, why is there a sudden push to bring in external investors? This inconsistency is troubling and suggests either financial mismanagement or a hidden agenda. The claim that issuing new shares to Erik Barmack, while also offering shares to the Well Society and other shareholders, will preserve fan ownership is misleading. The staged investment over six years, culminating in Barmack owning 49% of the shares, effectively hands over substantial control, if not a majority, and risks undermining the very foundation of fan ownership. The board's confidence in the safeguards against asset stripping is unconvincing. The supposed protections do little to alleviate concerns about long-term control and influence over club assets, including Fir Park. Finally, the proposed board structure, even with assurances of balanced representation, does not guarantee that fan interests will be safeguarded. The potential for conflicts of interest and undue influence remains high, particularly with Barmack appointing two of his own to the board. It is imperative, in my opinion, that the board halts this process until a full, detailed business plan is presented and subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The future of our club and the principle of fan ownership are too important to be compromised by incomplete and inadequately supported proposals. Nail on the heed here David. I'd gone back to daft memes recently and will return to that again soon, but genuinely forgot to point out another massive issue I had with the statement, around the SPFL's new TV deal with Premier Sports (it is Premier Sports again eh? They've had mare reboots than Rangers). While I fully accept certain elements cannot be disclosed, this is now a public deal, with numbers already circulating, the press release on the SPFL website stating it's worth another 8 figures and Doncaster describing it as record-breaking for clubs. They really like to play the whole 'we can't tell you what these are worth' card when it suits eh? McMahon and Co. are all over the shop and the sooner they take themselves and their bowling club attitude (sorry well functioning bowling clubs) away from the club, the better. They can try to push the 'fan ownership will remain' rhetoric all they like, but they're trying to sell the club, let's make no mistake about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 8 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I'd argue we need two left backs, personally. Particularly with the system that we play. I suppose it depends if Wilson is actually any good, I wouldn't be surprised if we tried to get a Furlong-type on loan from down south 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellboy1991 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 9 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I'd argue we need two left backs, personally. Particularly with the system that we play. I’d agree with that. Unless he thinks Wilson is ready to step go to the plate. He’s at a decent age so don’t see why not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 6 minutes ago, wellboy1991 said: I’d agree with that. Unless he thinks Wilson is ready to step go to the plate. He’s at a decent age so don’t see why not. I think he's been told this is his make or break year; I think he got a one year deal? Like, I've no idea how he did at Beith/Albion last season but it's a big step up to start playing in the SPL from there. Fair fucks if he does it, though. 7 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: I suppose it depends if Wilson is actually any good, I wouldn't be surprised if we tried to get a Furlong-type on loan from down south Aye, something like that would be idea, tbf. Edited June 20 by StAndrew7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 5 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: I suppose it depends if Wilson is actually any good, I wouldn't be surprised if we tried to get a Furlong-type on loan from down south I am all in on Wilson breaking through this season, he is a fit and robust looking lad, our on loan wing backs have been youngsters, hopefully one of our own can be a success. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 44 minutes ago, David1979 said: It makes sense, doesn't it? Especially in this situation. If Slattery doesn't recover and perform after his injury, we can let him go this time next year. But if he does recover and plays well, we have him secured for another year. Aye. I suspect had he not had that injury he'd have been away but he did and he's been crippled for a decent length of time. I still wasn't 100% sure he'd fancy coming back after all the unpleasantness maybe he'd fancy a fresh start back down the road after rehabbing his injury. In this situation I think everyone gets what they want though: He has security and a club to rehab, we get to hold on to a player we've invested in and gives us a chance to recoup whatever it was we paid Southampton in the event he makes a full recovery and comes good in which case we're protected by that option. Genuinely pleased we've kept hold of him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 If the option does get triggered we'd have got at least 5 years out of him (4 and a half really, I suppose) which feels increasingly rare. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 11 minutes ago, ropy said: I am all in on Wilson breaking through this season, he is a fit and robust looking lad, our on loan wing backs have been youngsters, hopefully one of our own can be a success. I'm on that bus, I've always said we need more players named Wilson. Happy enough with Slattery too, deal makes sense from both sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 13 minutes ago, capt_oats said: Aye. I suspect had he not had that injury he'd have been away but he did and he's been crippled for a decent length of time. I still wasn't 100% sure he'd fancy coming back after all the unpleasantness maybe he'd fancy a fresh start back down the road after rehabbing his injury. In this situation I think everyone gets what they want though: He has security and a club to rehab, we get to hold on to a player we've invested in and gives us a chance to recoup whatever it was we paid Southampton in the event he makes a full recovery and comes good in which case we're protected by that option. Genuinely pleased we've kept hold of him. Same. Despite some hot and cold performances, I really do think he's the kind of player you want beside Miller, with a nippy wee b*****d like Davor alongside the pair of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellboy1991 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 9 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Same. Despite some hot and cold performances, I really do think he's the kind of player you want beside Miller, with a nippy wee b*****d like Davor alongside the pair of them. That to me would be the ideal midfield three. If we had pace in the forward positions the ‘shroo’ balls from Miller and Slatts would be nice for them to turn and run the space. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al B Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Yeah I'm happy enough with that. I like Slattery, my only reservation is his constant need to go looking for free kicks. I get that he's really good at drawing a foul, but he's so focused on it that he still does it even when the ball has fallen kindly for him and offers a much better opportunity than the free kick would. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 2 minutes ago, Al B said: Yeah I'm happy enough with that. I like Slattery, my only reservation is his constant need to go looking for free kicks. I get that he's really good at drawing a foul, but he's so focused on it that he still does it even when the ball has fallen kindly for him and offers a much better opportunity than the free kick would. Same here. The number of times if he'd just stay on his feet and the chance is there to get into the box and shoot, he'd easily get double figures a season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Agree on Slattery, seemed at times he was chasing the most drawn foul stats than actually advancing the game by turning back into trouble. As we’re locked to wingbacks, the nature of their role running the full length of the line and 5 subs now, there’s a good chance the two we start will won’t feature by the final whistle. Potentially going through 4 per match, it would be better for our sustainability model with that much exposure and game time that we developed our own players rather than do it for others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Getting Slattery signed up again is a great bit of business, he was looking great before his injury last season. While the Callachan signing still might not make a huge amount of sense, it sits better knowing we have Slattery, who we know on his day brings some real quality to the team. Interesting folk are mentioning Furlong, was there not some chat at the end of the season that we were looking to bring him back? Would be ideal if that was the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standupforthemotherwell Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 Good to see the majority of the squad in place in plenty time for preseason. My main takeaway is that it likely means we got the first or second choice targets rather than being rejected by everyone we approach. We're going to Europe next year boys 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillips455 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 (edited) 45 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said: Good to see the majority of the squad in place in plenty time for preseason. My main takeaway is that it likely means we got the first or second choice targets rather than being rejected by everyone we approach. We're going to Europe next year boys Or, we could just be going for the 3rd options first since we know we apparently "can't afford" the bigger players. If only we had sold our soul for a few quid in the transfer kitty Edited June 20 by Phillips455 0 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.