Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 12 minutes ago, EK2DK said: We still haven’t seen a plan from Erik. I mean that is really it. There is no strategic plan from Erik. Vagueness about AI and other buzzwords are all he has put on paper. then the Tequila salesmen and Wembley games. it is moonhowling stuff. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 I know George Clooney has a Tequila brand but aside from that I'm not massive on insider Hollywood gossip/Mexican liquor. I assume its not him that's being hinted at? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 6 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: I know George Clooney has a Tequila brand but aside from that I'm not massive on insider Hollywood gossip/Mexican liquor. I assume its not him that's being hinted at? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukovic Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 19 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: I know George Clooney has a Tequila brand but aside from that I'm not massive on insider Hollywood gossip/Mexican liquor. I assume its not him that's being hinted at? The Rock has a tequila brand if that's of any interest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 35 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: I know George Clooney has a Tequila brand but aside from that I'm not massive on insider Hollywood gossip/Mexican liquor. I assume its not him that's being hinted at? Don't put that on twitter or you'll have some of our fans getting an itch in their pants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Barmack Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: I mean that is really it. There is no strategic plan from Erik. Vagueness about AI and other buzzwords are all he has put on paper. then the Tequila salesmen and Wembley games. it is moonhowling stuff. So, I'll bite: (1) I would like to have conversations with folks, even people who are adamantly against the offer, to figure out what makes the most sense for the Club (even if that's not the Barmacks). But over the last week that's become harder, and just as a litmus test for you to consider, I've received 20+ notes from people (at least half of whom were against the initial version of the deal), saying that they're afraid to post here and/or telling me that there's no point in posting here, because everything that I write will be mocked or taken out of context. Take that with the grain of salt, but I would prefer an outcome where the Club finds its preferred future because people are well-informed and not just mocking the other side. (2) On these two jibes above, to clarify: (A) The context of the Wembley comments were based on an article that I read about La Liga clubs seeking to place matches in the US. I was basically asking whether SPFL teams had or would every consider matches abroad. I don't have an opinion on this, except that in the short-term it's clearly bad, but in the long-term lots of leagues will consider it. To be perfectly clear, I don't think we should play the OF in Wembley. I was using this to provoke a conversation about something that was affecting the world of football, and therefore Motherwell. (B) I don't think we should be buying/selling players based on a tequila brand. I raised this point in a private Whatsapp chat because every club-owner whom I've known have told me that they have some process of considering commercial opportunities w/r/t player recruitment. (The clearest example was when Pulisic went to Milan -- an entire team of accountants, according to a friend, realized that the del was revenue positive from day 1.) The tequila line, pulled from a private chat, was a (bad) example, not meant to be taken seriously. But I understand why it's funny, and easy to use as a cudgel. But I suppose the question I'd ask back is, "If other clubs do have commercial considerations in player recruitment, should MFC, too?" I don't have an opinion on this topic set; I was giving the example to better understand how one might think about this position now. @David1979 also has serious criticisms of the deal that I would like to address in another post shortly. Again, though, it's a bit hard to have a conversation about ideas that may very well "lose" (which I'm fine with) if the opening position is, "You're a charlatan, prove me wrong." Will address his note shortly. E Edited June 21 by Erik Barmack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 39 minutes ago, YassinMoutaouakil said: I know George Clooney has a Tequila brand but aside from that I'm not massive on insider Hollywood gossip/Mexican liquor. I assume its not him that's being hinted at? He just hints at absolutely everything while saying f**k all. If you (and I mean in general, not you specifically) think the Society paying to hand control of the club over to this guy is a good idea, I have plots of land on the moon I can sell you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, camer0n_mcd said: On the well society proposal - Sean Baillie mentioned the other day that it was almost ready and then said today that it's going to be another #lengthy statement. So, as expected, the WS are treating this seriously and giving it the respect it deserves to the point they have a 50 page document while the Executive Board have pass-agg statements on their website with vague mentions about AI and a Chairman talking about "New Worlds To Explore" like he's fucking Magellan. Fucking hell...get McMahon and Dickie so far to f**k man. This honestly can't be highlighted strongly enough btw. Edited June 21 by capt_oats 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1979 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 6 minutes ago, Erik Barmack said: @David1979 also has serious criticisms of the deal that I would like to address in another post shortly. Before you do that, as you've previously gone down this route where you pieced together a few vague answers to some of my questions before promising to return and address the more pressing issues, and then didn't, please just answer these simple questions: 1. The WS is required to invest increasing amounts each year (£200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three). 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? And if not, what are the penalties? 2. Why is what you're bringing to the table worth the 47% you're wanting? You're offering £300,000 per year for three years. I assumed that such a low financial outlay would be complemented by a really attractive and solid business and investment plan. I mean, it would have to be, right? There are clubs around us, in the same league, who are offering far less percentage-wise for a lot more money. But you've offered nothing except vague ideas about using AI, bringing in "Hollywood folks" and wanting to meddle in the actual footballing side of things to convince your friends to get involved. You've acknowledged that you have approximately 10% of the information required to formulate a competent business plan. Have you genuinely conducted so little research into a potential investment opportunity? Why do you believe that is acceptable? 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 4 minutes ago, David1979 said: Have you genuinely conducted so little research into a potential investment opportunity? This was my thoughts when I saw him using arguably the most famous American footballer on the planet moving to one of the most recognisable clubs on the planet as something that's remotely relevant, or repeatable, at Motherwell. Like of course Pulisic moving to AC Milan is going to make them money through sponsorships/merchandise. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Good post Erik .... issue for you ...... I have receipts. Both ideas are now not serious because it now suits you to convey that, the conversation around the subjects for many days suggest it was more than flippant remarks. In the same way it now suits you to change your offer when you seen it going South. You didn't have this epiphany during your various focus group chats messages and meetings with the WS in person. You tried to sell the WS with 46% and others with 5% as fan ownership, you continue to find a major issue of the WS loan held as security agains the club that every accountant and business professional tells me it really useful. I said you wouldn't settle for less than the WS holding. I contend that the WS have to jump through a load of hoops with lots of lots of pitfalls. Also in each round of new shares being issued existing club shareholders (the 28.3%) will also have to contribute more every season to have their holding drop by half its effectiveness. Further to David's message above. If WS essentially crumbles as many would contend with all their reserves exhausted, how do you plan to prove financial stability for continued operations in October the the next 18 months. The WS currentlu have £750k in the bank which gives us that stability. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) Again, why do the Well Society have to pull together a 50-page strategy as club owners but random folk can just rock up? If investors want us to trust them, they could tell us a plan that involves something a bit more concrete than just repeating "we'll look to grow the club" in a variety of vague ways. How much did Hibs give away for the investment they just got? Because it sure as shit wasn't control or even close to it... Edited June 21 by MurrayWell 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Ray Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 11 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: This was my thoughts when I saw him using arguably the most famous American footballer on the planet moving to one of the most recognisable clubs on the planet as something that's remotely relevant, or repeatable, at Motherwell. Like of course Pulisic moving to AC Milan is going to make them money through sponsorships/merchandise. I mean, IMO, this isn’t really incorrect it’s just different scales. Look at how many interactions you see from Uganda fans on the socials for Bevis Mugabi. Celtic have a wide Japanese following now and a page on Twitter with significant followers. I think we had a young goalie from India training with us that resulted in hundreds of people from India following and commenting on the socials. The question is is there a way to convert things like this into revenue, which is not a bad question. I don’t think EB isn’t really too far off it with what he’s saying here just need to take in account scale will be smaller obviously. Edited June 21 by Ill Ray Spelling grammar etc 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well fan for life Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 How are we 8 years in and only just developing a "50 page strategy" for the WS? What the f**k has been going on man. Went fan owned, patted ourselves on the back and done f**k all else? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliphas Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 4 hours ago, capt_oats said: 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. Agree with all of that pretty much. But out of interest why is it only McMahon and Dickie. Feely is as involved as Dickie and I'd argue our Finance Director, who's been Head of Finance at MFC well before this all started, are all under serious question from me. The only one of the board I think gets a pass, just, is Caldwell as he is seriously late to the party 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, Ill Ray said: I mean, IMO, this isn’t really incorrect it’s just different scales. Look at how many interactions you see from Uganda fans on the social for Bevis Mugabi. Celtic have a wide Japanese following now and a page on Twitter with significant followers. Does Twitter interactions result in any sort of money or branding opportunity though. For example I'm 100% sure there are a few hundred Scottish weirdos all over Ryan Gauld's twitter. But what does that mean for the Vancouver Whitecaps? Are they getting any money from his noteriety? At best a few pilgrims might make the trip and buy a ticket to the game. Is Ryan Gauld the face of anything in Scotland, have you ever seen a Whitecaps shirt with Gauld on the back? Economically Liam Grimshaw was probably a bigger boon to the club than Bevis because he had his brother and a few mates coming up for a lot of games. Just now, well fan for life said: How are we 8 years in and only just developing a "50 page strategy" for the WS? What the f**k has been going on man. Went fan owned, patted ourselves on the back and done f**k all else? Strategy 1 was raise enough funds to buy a majority of the shares in the club. That has been completed successfully. And since taking control the club has continued to run on its profitable business model. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 9 minutes ago, MurrayWell said: Again, why do the Well Society have to pull together a 50-page strategy as club owners but random folk can just rock up? If investors want us to trust them, they could tell us a plan that involves something a bit more concrete than just repeating "we'll look to grow the club" in a variety of vague ways. How much did Hibs give away for the investment they just got? Because it sure as shit wasn't control or even close to it... 'I've only got 10% of a plan but I'll definitely grow the club' is the new 'I've definitely got a bird, she just goes to a different school' isn't it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 3 minutes ago, well fan for life said: How are we 8 years in and only just developing a "50 page strategy" for the WS? What the f**k has been going on man. Went fan owned, patted ourselves on the back and done f**k all else? No, they took the original plan of providing a safety net while the full-time pros did the growing. Fair enough, demand has now changed (apparently) and they're working on it - as noted, to an absurd degree not expected of Barmack by many - but it's ridiculous to move the goalposts and ask why this wasn't done before, it was never the intention. McMahon and those in charge twiddling their thumbs when Burrows left and deciding they couldn't just follow the plan but had to rip it up has got us into this mess. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisGRAEME Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 7 minutes ago, Ill Ray said: I mean, IMO, this isn’t really incorrect it’s just different scales. Look at how many interactions you see from Uganda fans on the socials for Bevis Mugabi. Celtic have a wide Japanese following now and a page on Twitter with significant followers. I think we had a young goalie from India training with us that resulted in hundreds of people from India following and commenting on the socials. The question is is there a way to convert things like this into revenue, which is not a bad question. I don’t think EB is really too far off it with what he’s saying here just need to take in account scale will be smaller obviously. Without being too dismissive of this principle: to what end? We did Japanese translations of highlights on the SPFL YouTube for months and while it did benefit short term, the long term fades, and drops off pretty steadily, eventually rendering it more hassle than it's worth. You're quite right in highlighting the values of scale in this, but the scale (and quite happily be told I'm wrong on this if folk think I am!) is the draw. Pulisic is the best and biggest player from the biggest sporting nation on earth, playing for one of the giants of European football, so... Yeah! That's a draw and a reason to buy in. It's been after a couple of failed starts and absolutely barrel-loads of money and effort that the NFL are gaining a bigger foothold in Europe, and yet, there seems to be this suggestion that advocating for Motherwell or the league in some different territories of the world can somehow cause a sea change in finances and direction. Any kind of steps you can make are so tied to passing interest, or moments in time to take advantage of that making that your whole strategy is absolutely fucking mental to me. Are we genuinely hoping that we can sell 5 thousand overseas subs to Uganda because we had Bevis? See instead of this? Maybe focus on the things that are here, are local, are part of sensible day to day business, rather than trying to thread this needle to short-cut our way to money. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 A short story, in this hypothetical situation a business, operating with a profit, is approached by an investor looking to buy the company. "Hey company, I'm a big time investor and would like to buy your business." "Oh, okay, we're not really selling up but we'll hear you out. What's the plan?" "I don't have one. Well I have 10 per cent of one, which involves growing the business you've built, I won't be explaining how. I also don't want to pay what you, the owner thinks it's worth, someone else gave me a figure that they think so I'll pay part of that." "Oh, well I don't want to sell the business to you then." "No, no. That's not how this will go, you, the owner, must now explain in great detail what you will do as owner of your business to keep it." "Wait... what?" What a bizarre situation. Absolutely mental. Imagine this happening? 14 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.