Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[FTOF]

9 hours ago, For Your Pies Only said:

I can't believe I'm typing this on a P&B forum, but Netflix and media production companies do not operate on the same business principles or models as 130+ year old provincial Scottish football clubs. Trying to run the latter like the former is an awful, awful idea - there is no room to 'fail forward' as the saying goes in tech circles, because clubs like Motherwell don't have the capital or business pivot potential to waste money and resources on a hastily workshopped ideas (sorry, that should be an 'agile strategy', I'm forgetting my business-speak) that might grow the business. If we fail commercially, that has an effect on playing staff. If we then fail on the pitch as a result, we're goosed.

I have no doubt the Barmacks are very, very good at what they do - their CVs would suggest that, as does their ability to make investments in the millions. I don't want to denigrate that, fair play to them. But the lack of understanding they are displaying about the club, community and Scottish football in general during this whole debacle is insane to me.

"I don't know if football would work that way"

Aye - that's become abundantly clear

A brilliant post.

Any potential investor who doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore,  the highlighted sentences shouldn't be anywhere near a football club like Motherwell.

 

[CoF]

46 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

To an extent sure, entirely? Nah...if people can't be bothered or unable to look beyond a headline for a decision like this, that's on them. 

Otherwise I agree with the sentiment but I would repeat for balance that being quiet in the background was literally their job. They weren't supposed to get involved day to day, they weren't supposed to fund the club... circumstances and wishes have changed for many, no problem, but I think chucking the whole thing out the window rather than first attempting a minor tweak because comms was sub-par is a hell of an overreaction.

And I'd argue that the sort of people who overreact like that will probably never be happy with what the Society produces (that's possibly unfair - just a hunch). I certainly don't think it's a surprise that reaction on the boards, with people who clearly spends a tonne of time absorbing info about the club, is near universally negative while Barmack's target voter is the social media crowd who decide on the headline and not the details.

Yeah I agree with much of what you’ve said there, however I’m not suggesting the society should be pulling the strings and hands-on. 

I just think the onus is on the society to make its value known. There have been times where literal years have gone by where my only awareness of the society has been the tenner a month on my bank statement. I suppose the assumption has been that the fans would always back fan ownership rather than something that needs constantly tended to. 

This has been the first big test of that idea and my criticism was very much a benefit-of-hindsight “oh f**k” after reading twitter and facebook.  

[Well Fan]

9 hours ago, Vietnam91 said:

When articulated English falls short. Insert graphs and amusing pertinent gifs. 

@Vietnam91 and others.

Great work. 

EB and the EB are sitting at the table with busted flushes.  

Call "em out!!!! 

To any swithering Well fans out there. 

Motherwell Football Club est. 1886...... (let that date sink in) 

Don't gamble on 2 busted flushes! 

 

[steelmen]

12 minutes ago, CoF said:

Yeah I agree with much of what you’ve said there, however I’m not suggesting the society should be pulling the strings and hands-on. 

 

I just think the onus is on the society to make its value known. There have been times where literal years have gone by where my only awareness of the society has been the tenner a month on my bank statement. I suppose the assumption has been that the fans would always back fan ownership rather than something that needs constantly tended to. 

This has been the first big test of that idea and my criticism was very much a benefit-of-hindsight “oh f**k” after reading twitter and facebook.  

If this deal was last year, I think it would have had a better chance of going through. As you say there was minimal engagement other than the direct debit.

 

 

since the election of new board members there has been a massive shift to be more engaging towards the fan base. I think that might just save true fan ownership 

[Handsome_Devil]

24 minutes ago, CoF said:

 

This has been the first big test of that idea and my criticism was very much a benefit-of-hindsight “oh f**k” after reading twitter and facebook.  

Aye, that's very fair and no argument on that one.

I don't think there's any doubt multiple mistakes have been made, some understandable - or logical at the time at least - and some less so, to land us here.

[welldaft]

I for one am really glad that it has taken fans on here (and other forum) to actually scrutinise the terms of the deal. It genuinely feels as if the Exec Board have not or as has been alluded to have other reasons for recommending the deal be accepted. Probably because it remains the only one on the table. And Jim McMahon is leaving and has someone available to take over. 

I have no ill will towards Erik. He is another US investor who seems obsessed with owning and running a UK football club. I think we can all ask why any of them do it. I assume Erik has looked at how much Mark Ogren has invested in Dundee United without much if any success. By all metrics they are a bigger club than us with a bigger fan base. The result is £10-15m invested only for the club to be relegated. 

For me like many others there is scant detail around the terms of the deal. @David1979 has done a great job highlighting this. I would have more faith in Erik if he answered some of the tougher more pressing questions. But these seem to be being avoided. Maybe on purpose or maybe because we won’t like the answer. I suspect many of us feel the latter.  The key outstanding Q for me (that was highlighted) is what happens if the WS cannot invest or hand over to the club the sums of money detailed in the proposal ? That is KEY. Without knowing that why would anyone vote yes. Too many unknowns. 

I said on here yesterday I was looking forward to reading the revised proposal. I genuinely did not know that I actually had. I blinked and missed it. Fair enough the 51% ownership. But reducing the buy out by 5% was well . I was expecting more to be honest. 

Glad Ketts is going about building his squad and the football side looks like it is unaffected for the time being. But it hard to see how the WS and current Exec Board can sit side by side if this deal does not go through. 

Edited June 22 by welldaft

[Handsome_Devil]

3 minutes ago, welldaft said:

But it hard to see how the WS and current Exec Board can sit side by side if this deal does not go through. 

Thankfully that's easily resolved... though I doubt they can sit side by side if it goes through either tbf.

[capt_oats]

19 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

The whole "invest in our story" shite has been peddled by McMahon at every AGM I've been to for the last 5 or 6 years.

He sat on it and sat on it, did nothing and eventually rushed it through shortly after Well Society elections happened and (in my view) he realised he wasn't going to be able have the influence that he had as Chairman, because the Yes Men and Women on the WS Board he had relied on for so long were all of a sudden outnumbered; with passionate advocates for proper fan ownership appointed in their place.

On this point, I was at the AGM in either 2018 or 2019 (definitely pre-Covid) and McMahon had the same spiel about "investment" and appealing to people to "invest in our story". At that time the idea was to pitch for capital from outside (local) sources with a view to paying back in a similar mechanism that had cleared what was owed to Boyle and Hutchison.

As you say it never happened and as has been mentioned, at subsequent AGMs he was called out on it and was essentially forced to put up his hands and say none of these plans been advanced (there was also the discussion raised about getting involved in a co-op at Dalziel Park with the idea of running operations from there).

Anyway, I'm now wondering whether it was genuinely a case of him sitting on it and doing nothing (I suspect part of it was given the Turnbull money came the next year) or whether having a presence like Burrows was keeping his fucking dumb ideas in check so they never actually got off the ground whereas Weir was simply making sure that very basic obligations were being met which has given McMahon the opportunity to be indulged with no pushback.

Edited June 22 by capt_oats

[Wellwatcher]

Having spent what felt like weeks reading about how poor the valuation of the club was we have moved on to Wild Sheep not having a plan. I think that no matter what happens there will be people not happy one way or another. 

I agree with other posts that a pause is required to allow the WS to prepare and present their business plan. Once this is done discussions between Wild Sheep and the WS should be undertaken to find common ground and hopefully a cooperative way forward. Then a vote can take place with hopefully WS board and members agreement with an agreed strategy going forward. When I read that the WS is taking legal advice there is something fungamentally wrong and how can Motherwell FC governance work with the 50.1% majority shareholder not in favour of the clubs strategic direction.

Should a vote take place now, then if it goes against Wild Sheep we may have lost an investor with ideas and contacts we don't have, whereas a vote in favour means the WS board is in an impossible position

EB - I hope you read this and appreciate that not everybody is against you but you have to take the WS on this journey with you

Edited June 22 by Wellwatcher

[MurrayWell]

4 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

Having spent what felt like weeks reading about how poor the valuation of the club was we have moved on to Wild Sheep not having a plan. I think that no matter what happens there will be people not happy one way or another. 

 

A poor valuation of the club and a potential investor not having a strategy are perfectly valid reasons to not be happy. I find it absolutely incredible people would happily vote for this with how little information has been shared.

I'm not saying the Barmacks aren't interesting, again some of the ideas they've shared while really early stages sound cool, but they've done absolutely zero to back up how they'd achieve anything. Even the point about contacts, what are you basing this on? Even that part as been vague. Is it because they've worked at big companies and in production? Anyone can say these things. 

[capt_oats]

20 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

A poor valuation of the club and a potential investor not having a strategy are perfectly valid reasons to not be happy. I find it absolutely incredible people would happily vote for this with how little information has been shared.

If there's one thing I have to tip my hat to the Executive Board it's the way they've managed to create a narrative that suits their agenda.

It's Schrödinger's Accounting - a Football Club that's both financially stable with a profitable business model but also so desperate it has to take an objectively terrible deal that's on the table because *things might happen*.

Edited June 22 by capt_oats

[Wellwatcher]

15 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

A poor valuation of the club and a potential investor not having a strategy are perfectly valid reasons to not be happy. I find it absolutely incredible people would happily vote for this with how little information has been shared.

I'm not saying the Barmacks aren't interesting, again some of the ideas they've shared while really early stages sound cool, but they've done absolutely zero to back up how they'd achieve anything. Even the point about contacts, what are you basing this on? Even that part as been vague. Is it because they've worked at big companies and in production? Anyone can say these things. 

I think you are saying the same as I did except in a confrontational way that may be dissuading people from posting here. I am trying to present a way forward from the impasse between the WS and Wild Sheep. If the WS can present a business plan and EB does the same in a cooperative manner then a way forward may be possible.

[Well Fan]

One day, Captain (Jim) Pugwash assembled his trusty crew. Roger the Cabin boy, Seaman Staines and Master Bates. Look, I've found a treasure map that will make us very very rich. 

Yeah, everyone exclaimed excitedly!........................................ 

Next episode........................................... 

Captain Pugwash walks the plank. 

 

 

Edited June 22 by Well Fan

[Handsome_Devil]

57 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

Having spent what felt like weeks reading about how poor the valuation of the club was we have moved on to Wild Sheep not having a plan. I think that no matter what happens there will be people not happy one way or another. 

I agree with other posts that a pause is required to allow the WS to prepare and present their business plan. Once this is done discussions between Wild Sheep and the WS should be undertaken to find common ground and hopefully a cooperative way forward. Then a vote can take place with hopefully WS board and members agreement with an agreed strategy going forward. When I read that the WS is taking legal advice there is something fungamentally wrong and how can Motherwell FC governance work with the 50.1% majority shareholder not in favour of the clubs strategic direction.

Should a vote take place now, then if it goes against Wild Sheep we may have lost an investor with ideas and contacts we don't have, whereas a vote in favour means the WS board is in an impossible position

EB - I hope you read this and appreciate that not everybody is against you but you have to take the WS on this journey with you

We've not really moved tbf, there were a bucket of things wrong with the deal from the start and those were a couple of them.

I definitely admire your optimism on believing EB has any interest in taking the Society with him, it's certainly in stark contrast to his actions so far. If the worst happens, I really hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[Doctor Manhattan]

27 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

I think you are saying the same as I did except in a confrontational way that may be dissuading people from posting here.

I don't see anything particularly confrontational in @MurrayWell's post, let alone anything likely to dissuade people from posting here. I'm not saying things never get out of hand - Pie and Bovril is a very broad church indeed - but this discussion has by and large been carried out in a remarkably polite and civilised manner. IMO, any narrative about "bullying" is hugely over egged.

[David1979]

4 hours ago, steelmen said:

I agree with you but I am trying to see why some board members see this as a good deal. They must have reasons… don’t they?

Maybe they should come out and articulate their views to the wider fanbase? I don't agree with much of what Erik says, but at least he's out here fighting his own corner.

56 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

I think you are saying the same as I did except in a confrontational way that may be dissuading people from posting here.

The future of our club is at stake. The discussion is going to venture into the territory of robust, but I've yet to see anyone come on and actually provide a solid, reasoned explanation of why they believe the deal is a good one? 

[Vietnam91]

1 hour ago, Wellwatcher said:

I think you are saying the same as I did except in a confrontational way that may be dissuading people from posting here. I am trying to present a way forward from the impasse between the WS and Wild Sheep. If the WS can present a business plan and EB does the same in a cooperative manner then a way forward may be possible.

I think what you are suggesting is both reasonable and fair with a normal offer of investment. It assumes both parties start equidistant from compromise and work over time to make compromises or at least come to terms with them and put aside in an effort to move forward.

It's safe to say this is not a normal investment. Until a few days ago the scheme took the fan owned entity down to 46% while simultaneously promoting the ideals of fan ownership. It has been a semi aggressive attempt (illustrated amply by its terms and conditions) to take control of the club while hobbling the ability of the majority shareholder to act in future.

A normal investor wold have watched that video and followed the "stay in your lane" mindset unless the sentiment and constant references to community.

Edited June 22 by Vietnam91

[Wellwatcher]

14 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

I think what you are suggesting is both reasonable and fair with a normal offer of investment. It assumes both parties start equidistant from compromise and work over time to make compromises or at least come to terms with them and put aside in an effort to move forward.

It's safe to say this is not a normal investment. Until a few days ago the scheme took the fan owned entity down to 46% while simultaneously promoting the ideals of fan ownership. It has been a semi aggressive attempt (illustrated amply by its terms and conditions) to take control of the club while hobbling the ability of the majority shareholder to act in future.

Cheers for agreeing to a reasoned approach to either moving forward with Wild Sheep or not. If the WS representatives on the Exec Board are not pushing for consultation between EB and the WS then they should be removed and persons who represent the view of the WS board and its membership put in place.

I reiterate, a pause is required to prevent possible fragmentation of the WS should a vote go ahead, despite implications that nobody is in favour of the Wild Sheep proposal.

PS

I am not in favour of the proposal as it stands but EB has shown some compromise so lets build on it

[MurrayWell]

2 hours ago, Wellwatcher said:

I think you are saying the same as I did except in a confrontational way that may be dissuading people from posting here. I am trying to present a way forward from the impasse between the WS and Wild Sheep. If the WS can present a business plan and EB does the same in a cooperative manner then a way forward may be possible.

I'm really not sure that's fair, while I've been clear I'm against the proposal at the moment, I've also been consistent in pointing out why people may be keen on some of the ideas being suggested. In a fairly recent post I said the same, the one that starts with "for balance". My issue and frustration lies with the executive board and EB's apparent desire to not share a strategy, and continuing to use vague statements and hints of connections. You referred to connections that EB may have as a positive and I asked you to clarify what you meant by it, as maybe you've seen something that I haven't that makes you feel more comfortable around that aspect of it.

As @David1979 says, we're talking about the future of the club here and this is a forum designed for debate. I really don't think anything I said was confrontational, I asked one question. Appreciate that over text tone can be lost, so maybe best we put it down to that and draw a line under it? I'll do the same with your comment, I don't think many would describe me as a confrontational poster on here, maybe they'd say my patter is shite but that's another discussion. 

Some people may be happy with the deal as it is, and the information they've been given on it, that's up to them. I'm not and that takes us back to the main issue for me here, the lack of strategy around this offer and the real lack of desire to remedy that before asking people to take a leap. 

Also FWIW I absolutely agree on the WS being involved, I asked EB the same last night.

Edited June 22 by MurrayWell

[Wellwatcher]

13 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

I'm really not sure that's fair, while I've been clear I'm against the proposal at the moment, I've also been consistent in pointing out why people may be keen on some of the ideas being suggested. In a fairly recent post I said the same, the one that starts with "for balance". My issue and frustration lies with the executive board and EB's apparent desire to not share a strategy, and continuing to use vague statements and hints of connections. You referred to connections that EB may have as a positive and I asked you to clarify what you meant by it, as maybe you've seen something that I haven't that makes you feel more comfortable around that aspect of it.

As @David1979 says, we're talking about the future of the club here and this is a forum designed for debate. I really don't think anything I said was confrontational, I asked one question. Appreciate that over text tone can be lost, so maybe best we put it down to that and draw a line under it? I'll do the same with your comment, I don't think many would describe me as a confrontational poster on here, maybe they'd say my patter is shite but that's another discussion. 

Some people may be happy with the deal as it is, and the information they've been given on it, that's up to them. I'm not and that takes us back to the main issue for me here, the lack of strategy around this offer and the real lack of desire to remedy that before asking people to take a leap. 

Perhaps we need to chill until the WS board members return from Germany, get their thought together and start communicating with us

Agreed, if we were in a pub it probably wouldn't be an issue. 

We all want the same thing and the proposal has been handled badly by the Exec Board with the support of WS representatives on the Board. EB surely must know that unless the WS is with him on this it wont work. Hopefully communications from the WS board will happen soon and we can get the full picture of what is going on and if they have any relationship with EB.

Edited June 22 by Wellwatcher