Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Vietnam91]

38 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

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

You misunderstand my premise. Erik lost any goodwill when he proposed his scheme. Way back at the very start is was really awful, along the way he's been advised and had it insisted upon him by the WS (which he acknowledged) that it wouldn't fly and it stayed patently awful. However despite all of this we got the 10th of June scheme. Upon seeing it going south we get the 21st of June re-jig. It's a constant moving of the goalposts on public opinion, therefore not serious nor credible. Just throwing enough at it to see people's tipping points. More on that later ......

Now half of the £868k soft loan is being framed as what we'd pay (with our own money) to move us from 46% to 50%+1 and Erik drop to 46%. All the time framing concessions as magnanimity is a level of audacity I've never experienced nor attempted.

If you take the piss, continue to take the piss then please don't think you have any legitimacy to be an active player at the table. It is for that reason I can't consider Erik being involved in the club in any way, shape or form. He lost the privilege of being associated with our club.

 

NB. I actually googled "How do you “professionally” ask someone if they are taking the piss?" to temper the language above and couldn't find a suitable alternative that encapsulated it sufficiently.

 

[MurrayWell]

10 minutes ago, Wellwatcher said:

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.

One issue, why you changing the quote from me to include something about folk being in Germany? I never said that that behaviour will put folk off from posting here...

[Doctor Manhattan]

8 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

NB. I actually googled "How do you “professionally” ask someone if they are taking the piss?" to temper the language above and couldn't find a suitable alternative that encapsulated it sufficiently.

In management speak it's perhaps an example of a "provocation", but I don't think that's an exact match. References to the Clyde and a banana boat might be closer, if not politically correct.

[redstarcvedza]

9 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

In management speak it's perhaps an example of a "provocation", but I don't think that's an exact match. References to the Clyde and a banana boat might be closer, if not politically correct.

"Do you think I zip up the back" is used frequently in my household 

 

[MurrayWell]

3 hours ago, capt_oats said:

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*.

Aye, I think this is a huge part of it. 

Alongside the rhetoric from McMahon and Co. of it's "Barmack or bust" on the investment front. If this doesn't work, that doesn't mean something else further down the line won't. 

It really shouldn't be WS vs Investment, that's the narrative that, imo, the executive board are pushing. 

[camer0n_mcd]

Admittedly I don't have a lot of experience in selling multi-million pound businesses but I'd hazard a guess that releasing a video begging for an investor and constantly telling everyone how skint we are might not put us in that strong a position when trying to negotiate a deal.

 

But what do I know ?

[capt_oats]

48 minutes ago, MurrayWell said:

Aye, I think this is a huge part of it. 

Alongside the rhetoric from McMahon and Co. of it's "Barmack or bust" on the investment front. If this doesn't work, that doesn't mean something else further down the line won't. 

It really shouldn't be WS vs Investment, that's the narrative that, imo, the executive board are pushing. 

Aye.

I mean, I may be well off beam but from what I've seen on Twitter there seems to be an entirely toxic attitude towards the Executive Board (not even people I follow so it's less a case of me seeing my confirmation bias opinions in my carefully curated echo chamber)- including fans who own businesses and people who like, know what they're talking about.

It feels like if the WS can put something out there that is both credible and realistic (which I think they will tbf) then there's a fair chance that there will be *far* more goodwill towards it from people with an actual platform. It really feels like McMahon et al have scunnered a *lot* of the support.

In that respect the WS keeping their powder dry, getting legal advice and preparing something substantial - that as Sean mentioned, the club FD agrees with their figures - while the Executive Board just flails around the way they have is actually kind of sensible.

That doesn't necessarily mean it will cut through to the literal idiots but proportionally speaking the loudest voices taking the "iNveSTmEnT" are those who have taken the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" attitude from Day 1 and, in some cases, have almost been willing the Society to fail. 

22 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

Admittedly I don't have a lot of experience in selling multi-million pound businesses but I'd hazard a guess that releasing a video begging for an investor and constantly telling everyone how skint we are might not put us in that strong a position when trying to negotiate a deal.

But what do I know ?

Aye, it really feels like McMahon and his nodding dogs have done a shitload of damage here that's going to need a *lot* of rebuilding.

[capt_oats]

Big Aston keeps #13 then?

[capt_oats]

18 hours ago, eliphas said:

I think the @Erik Barmack and family bid has a lot of merit in there (I mean for a start there are things in there that Burrows, Grant etc were getting praised for like CRM, Social media initiatives and growing the brand...some people on here loved all that are criticising EB for the same things).

This is true however they were employees doing a job and carrying out a role.

If we want to grow the brand and focus on CRM, Social Media initiatives etc then it'd be more in our interests just making a hire rather than handing over half the club to some random having made the position redundant because our Chairman thought it wasn't worth the investment in a salary.

(I'm being facetious here - but also kind of not)

Edited June 22 by capt_oats

[CoF]

18 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

This is true however they were employees doing a job and carrying out a role.

If we want to grow the brand and focus on CRM, Social Media initiatives etc then it'd be more in our interests just making a hire rather than handing over half the club to some random having made the position redundant because our Chairman thought it wasn't worth the investment in a salary.

(I'm being facetious here - but also kind of not)

That’s kinda where I am. In part, this all seems like a long-winded way to reverse cuts made by the same board to the (previously excellent) media department. 

[thisGRAEME]

10 minutes ago, CoF said:

That’s kinda where I am. In part, this all seems like a long-winded way to reverse cuts made by the same board to the (previously excellent) media department. 

Also, I suppose kind of related to my post yesterday, but again; to what end.

Folk seem to think that there's some massive lapsed audience in Scotland desperately looking for a miserable experience most Saturdays of the year. 

 

It's an oft-quoted fact but fucking loads of people go to the football in Scotland. 

Attendances across the board are gently trending up, but I think it was @Swello highlighted; Motherwell basically don't move. Good? Bad? (We don't really do indifferent) The attendance remains the same. 

That's not to say that we shouldn't try, but if you're looking to add, say, 2k to the weekly attendance? Good luck.

[Wellwatcher]

Me until I hear from the Well Society or EB

Edited June 22 by Wellwatcher

[Handsome_Devil]

6 hours ago, Wellwatcher said:

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

True. The Society should say for £4m over six years he can build to 50-50 in the boardroom with the WS being chair and casting vote in a tie.

[David1979]

2 hours ago, Wellwatcher said:

Me until I hear from the Well Society or EB

Funnily enough, that GIF is my reaction when I see "Erik Barmack is typing..."

[ropy]

On a completely different note I was reminiscing over the fact that this past season was the one when we won at Ibrox.  I think I let that wash over me too easily at the time possibly because it was a match I wasn’t at and I was just sitting on the couch with the radio on.  That was a remarkable result given it was off the back of the unpleasant streak.  It also caused the first wobble in the SevCo juggernaut.

All in all a match worth celebrating.

Back to the bid….

[camer0n_mcd]

 

13 minutes ago, ropy said:

On a completely different note I was reminiscing over the fact that this past season was the one when we won at Ibrox.  I think I let that wash over me too easily at the time possibly because it was a match I wasn’t at and I was just sitting on the couch with the radio on.  That was a remarkable result given it was off the back of the unpleasant streak.  It also caused the first wobble in the SevCo juggernaut.

All in all a match worth celebrating.

Back to the bid….

27 year hoodoo no more

[boozyBJ]

Might not play at Ibrox again…….

[eliphas]

3 hours ago, capt_oats said:

This is true however they were employees doing a job and carrying out a role.

If we want to grow the brand and focus on CRM, Social Media initiatives etc then it'd be more in our interests just making a hire rather than handing over half the club to some random having made the position redundant because our Chairman thought it wasn't worth the investment in a salary.

(I'm being facetious here - but also kind of not)

I think that's a fair rebuttal but I'm not so sure all of the other replies of 'get in the bin' , 'charlatan' etc are also thinking that. 

The debate is very polarised - seems to be either 1) the bid is totally shite and I don't want to to see it again, or it seems from online/socialsstuff (which I'm only seeing clipped on here) 2) some people loving it.

For me, and where I sit, and I think is a genuine group of people who will be voting.

- I'm not undecided. It's a no from me. The bid isn't anywhere near good enough for the club or WS in it's current form.  Don't care the metric, it's under valued.

- But there are, I think, some good ideas in there that someone like @Erik Barmack could use to unlock future investment lines for the club. Which, I think, personally is needed in the medium and long term. Not for survival, but to continue to improve and grow.  

- Repeating myself now, but we should stop the bid and vote. Club and WS boards regroup and keep talking. The WS themselves have said they would like to explore working with Erik. I support that to figure out if it's an ownership only thing or some sort of middle ground possibility.

[Handsome_Devil]

44 minutes ago, eliphas said:

I think that's a fair rebuttal but I'm not so sure all of the other replies of 'get in the bin' , 'charlatan' etc are also thinking that. 

The debate is very polarised - seems to be either 1) the bid is totally shite and I don't want to to see it again, or it seems from online/socialsstuff (which I'm only seeing clipped on here) 2) some people loving it.

For me, and where I sit, and I think is a genuine group of people who will be voting.

- I'm not undecided. It's a no from me. The bid isn't anywhere near good enough for the club or WS in it's current form.  Don't care the metric, it's under valued.

- But there are, I think, some good ideas in there that someone like @Erik Barmack could use to unlock future investment lines for the club. Which, I think, personally is needed in the medium and long term. Not for survival, but to continue to improve and grow.  

- Repeating myself now, but we should stop the bid and vote. Club and WS boards regroup and keep talking. The WS themselves have said they would like to explore working with Erik. I support that to figure out if it's an ownership only thing or some sort of middle ground possibility.

I'm 100% pro regrouping and reopening negotiations. Largely for the reasons you give, I just vary massively in my expectations of them.

If EB had any serious intention of working with the Society, he wouldn't have proposed a first offer which killed the WS overnight and a revised offer which was barely much better.

This is where the theory of what we'd all love, EB contributing as a minor investor to implement his ideas, looks like total fantasy in practice.

There is absolutely nothing in his ideas and 10% business plan which justify giving him control, certainly not giving up the lifeline of control over FP.

I call him a charlatan (I didn't use that word actually but in principle sure) because when there's such a comical disconnect between his words and his actions, I call bullshit.

If someone claims to value the fans, want to work with the society etc but wants immediate control for 300k and a Society payment regime almost level to his investment for a huge reduction in ownership (and all the other red flags I won't bother repeating) ... bollocks, quite frankly. It's so ridiculous I don't understand why anyone would take those words in good faith when his actions are in such stark contrast to them.

[boozyBJ]