Randolphtops Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, witchfindergeneral said: I've been quiet on this as everyone else here basically airs my thoughts for me, but my question for EB at this point is what is he getting out of this? Yes, it is good that he's clearly listened to opinions of fans and amended the proposal, but why? I don't see why anyone would be so desperate to invest This is where I am, I would love to think they 'get it' and just want to grow the club cause they like the ethos, but dealing as I do with American Clients, they would be very different if so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 28 minutes ago, wellboy1991 said: Interesting picture from wee Georgie Gent on his Instagram….. standing in full well training gear. (Caveat to add, last season training gear) He hates the Dundee United gear as much as we do 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) *sigh* Honestly just f**k off with this. I note that it's made explicit it’s been the Board of Directors having the discussion not the WS. Again, it’s the WS as owners who matter here not McMahon and his nodding dogs. Get this whole shitshow into the sea. Edited June 21 by capt_oats 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 13 minutes ago, capt_oats said: *sigh* Honestly just f**k off with this. I note that made explicit it’s been the Board of Directors having the discussion not the WS. Again, it’s the WS as owners who matter here not McMahon and his nodding dogs. Get this whole shitshow into the sea. Mid March 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Still won't be voting for it. Think it'll happen though, because ye know, reasons Slightly better, still absolutely pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Saints Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Has Taylor Swift not put in an offer yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 18 minutes ago, The Real Saints said: Has Taylor Swift not put in an offer yet? She's holding out to save us at the eleventh hour. Just you wait. Edited June 21 by camer0n_mcd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Ray Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 So Well Society 50.1 percent and Barmack 47? Looks good on paper, any business minded people any qualms etc? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, Ill Ray said: So Well Society 50.1 percent and Barmack 47? Looks good on paper, any business minded people any qualms etc? Just Bernie Madoff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casinobay Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 11 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said: I'm holding out to save us at the eleventh hour. Just you wait. This could actually be a Taylor Swift lyric 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 13 minutes ago, casinobay said: This could actually be a Taylor Swift lyric I assumed it was 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1979 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 15 minutes ago, Ill Ray said: So Well Society 50.1 percent and Barmack 47? Looks good on paper, any business minded people any qualms etc? I have a few. Maybe some other people on the forum can answer them for me? Well Society's Financial Commitment: The WS is required to invest increasing amounts each year (£200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three). If the WS fails to raise these funds, they could be forced to dilute their shareholding. Question: What happens if the WS cannot meet its financial commitments in any given year? Does Wild Sheep Sports have the option to cover the shortfall, thereby increasing their shareholding? Board Composition and Decision-Making: The Executive Board has eight members, with the WS and Wild Sheep Sports each nominating three directors. If there's a tie, Erik (as Chair) has the deciding vote. Question: Could Erik's deciding vote be used strategically to influence key decisions that might indirectly lead to an increase in Wild Sheep Sports' control over time? Potential Avenues for Erik Barmack to Gain Total Control Increased Share Purchase: If the WS cannot meet their annual financial commitments, Wild Sheep Sports could purchase additional shares, increasing their ownership beyond 47%. Strategic Decision-Making: By leveraging the deciding vote, Erik could push through decisions that might favour Wild Sheep Sports financially or operationally, potentially leading to scenarios where the WS might have to sell more shares or accept further investments from Wild Sheep Sports. Buyback Failure: If the WS is unable to exercise the buyback option, Wild Sheep Sports remains in control of 47% of the shares. Any future capital injections might come with terms that could further dilute WS’s control. Financial Pressure: If the club faces financial hardships, which more than likely will happen based on the ludicrous ideas I've seen from Barmack to this point, which won't come cheap, the WS might be pressured to accept further investments from Wild Sheep Sports to stabilize the club, gradually increasing Wild Sheep Sports’ shareholding. Factors that haven't been addressed Nothing has changed around what Barmack is actually going to do to provide value for his owning almost half the club. That hasn't changed, so I refer to my previous post: The club board's statement has unfortunately failed 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. Moreover, the notion that consultation can replace the need for a comprehensive, transparent business plan is deeply flawed. Fans and stakeholders deserve to see concrete figures and detailed plans, not vague promises and unverified claims. Until such a business plan is presented, any decision on this proposal is premature and fraught with risk. It is imperative that the board halts this process until a full, detailed business plan is provided 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. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukovic Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 I can only hope the people under the Facebook post for the new deal aren't members of The Well Society. Would get some echo with the amount of empty space in their heads. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 is it better? yes is it good enough? for me no, for others maybe. I have said before, I don't understand it as well as @Vietnam91 @David1979 (but thank you for trying to keep it simple for me), but this section is an interesting bit of word play Therefore, the increase in the Well Society shareholding would not require the Well Society to invest any additional sums to the original proposal. The Society is not increasing out shareholding, we are going from 71% (?) to 51%. and paying the same money as EB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 The buy back option is slightly more palatable although I would need to go back and read in what way Lennon’s transfer was going to help to make it affordable. Will people be tempted to try it for a couple of years? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukovic Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 My general feelings though. 6CG6vBLA2L5_4iCycDwE-CCPDwU=.mp4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) Besides the quite hilarious optics of the original statement from the Executive Board, the subsequent resignations in fits of pique and McMahons condescending, pass-agg *clarification* 2 days ago we now have a revision which makes things marginally better but still fails to address strategic concerns etc (see @David1979's post above). It's still a deal that's very much not for me and one I will not be voting for either as shareholder or Well Society member. James McMahon and Douglas Dickie are not serious people and this becomes clearer the more they try to railroad this whole shambles through. Their insistence on this July 1st vote when there are so many issues puts their competence in genuine question. The sensible course of action here would be, as others have suggested, to pause the whole thing and allow Motherwell FC to get it's house in order then get the WS to the table with clear red lines and two boards who are in alignment about what they are trying to achieve and what outcomes they want rather than whatever this is. It is genuinely farcical that the Executive Board have allowed this to escalate in the way they have. In fact, quite frankly, it's a fucking disgrace. Ultimately if The Well Society recommend an investment offer then chances are it will pass with minimal fuss because those remaining members are invested in the fan ownership project. These are the people who should be directly involved in the conversation not being kept at arms length because they're viewed as an inconvenience. TL,DR - get this in the bin, get our house in order and let the WS work with a fresh executive board who are in clear alignment as to what we want as a Football Club. Edited June 21 by capt_oats 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Are there still types of votes that require 75% shareholder approval? If the WS is a block vote and the Wild Sheep is a block vote no such vote can be passed if they are not in accord? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 I still find it astonishing that the WS / fans have effectively forced this revised offer and not the incumbent Exec Board. That is how it appears to be. As to the changes. Keeping a majority share was important but I was hoping for a little more truth be told. What I do know is that I would like a new Chairman and a new direction / strategy for Motherwell FC. I just don’t feel there has been enough of an effort / focus on growing our revenues as a club over the past few years. As to whether EB and Wild Sheep is the answer I still have my reservations. Will we see what the WS proposal / business plan is before any vote ? Right now there are only two options on the table. Status Quo or Wild Sheep. I still need to see what the WS are proposing before I could vote one way or another. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boozyBJ Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Pardon my ignorance but I’ve not seen our new CEO’s name been mentioned anywhere. What is his role in all of this? 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.