Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Al B]

Should we get a shipment of Green and Gold scarves made up just in case?

[Handsome_Devil]

9 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Also, if I were Barmack, if he wins with a split fan base (so say the Society vote is split closely) and a significant number of private shareholders oppose him; I wouldn't want to take effective control of a Club where he'll be greeted by jeers, boos and protests every time he comes over and visits.

Probably.

On the point above though, maybe...there's certainly a logical case for that. On the other hand, he won't be here that often and he'll be aware how easy it is to manipulate fans - a strong start to the season or some easy positive headlines will go a long way to changing the immediate mood, regardless of how cautious some folk are about the long-term.

Edit to add - his basic premise will still be intact even if he's hated... he'll have control and likely soon a majority stake in a financially stable business with growing revenues for well under half price. 

Edited Thursday at 10:54 by Handsome_Devil

[StAndrew7]

3 minutes ago, Al B said:

Should we get a shipment of Green and Gold scarves made up just in case?

Petrol blue and white.

[Doctor Manhattan]

10 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

#NumberPolis

Unlucky, Aston.

[StAndrew7]

10 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Probably.

On the point above though, maybe...there's certainly a logical case for that. On the other hand, he won't be here that often and he'll be aware how easy it is to manipulate fans - a strong start to the season or some easy positive headlines will go a long way to changing the immediate mood, regardless of how cautious some folk are about the long-term.

Edit to add - his basic premise will still be intact even if he's hated... he'll have control and likely soon a majority stake in a financially stable business with growing revenues for well under half price. 

Oh yeah, I absolutely get that and I think there will still be a consistent cohort (although if there's success on the park, perhaps a smaller one) who are opposed to his ownership, albeit they'll be more on the sidelines by the time he takes control/his plan really starts to be embedded, I would imagine. Fitba fans are a fickle bunch, after all...

If this does get voted through, I think a lot of the assumptions the Exec Board appear to be relying on (per Tom at last night's session, anyway) on the WS continuing its contributions at the same levels and being able to co-invest will fall apart. That's when the complete unpreparedness of the plan for such an eventuality will become apparent; I don't think anyone can authoritatively state what will happen in that case; despite the question being asked of the Club by a fair few people.

[crazylegsjoe_mfc]

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

I think this goes back to my comments yesterday as @Busta Nut has mentioned already; there is a real need to avoid this turning into an all out civil war/messy fight for the club.

I think letting this run its course essentially sorts this all out without the need to go that far, either way:

1) Barmack (and the Executive Board)'s proposal is rejected and nothing moves forward. The Executive Board have hoist themselves on their own petard and have no choice but to tender their resignations, without the need to call for an Extraordinary General Meeting. The Well Society then appoint a new Chairman, Exec Board representatives and progress with their plan.

2) Barmack's proposal is voted through; the current WS Board resigns en-mass, aside from Tom Feely. The organisation needs to rebuild itself and those in support of EB's proposal have to step up to the mark. The Executive Board will be restructured, with Erik as Chairman, his two additional members and then two new WS representatives.

Now; I think this is all dependent on either of these options being voted through with a healthy majority in favour of either; a pyrrhic victory for either side causes problems and divisions within the fans and Club. This is also ignoring how the remaining private shareholders vote. I know it's a smaller percentage, and about 4 or 5 people hold around 15-20% of the 26% or so that's left, but there's still a presence there which represents a significant number of individual fans, some of whom aren't Society members.

For example, a 52/48 split in either direction in the Society vote would lead to some pretty unhappy groups of fans. It could also lead to, for argument's sake, an outgoing chairman trying to cling to power "because it's clear some people want change" or something, despite having lost the vote.

That's when things get messy, and you'd be looking at an EGM being called to remove him and the Exec Board members who aren't employees who backed it.

Also, if I were Barmack, if he wins with a split fan base (so say the Society vote is split closely) and a significant number of private shareholders oppose him; I wouldn't want to take effective control of a Club where he'll be greeted by jeers, boos and protests every time he comes over and visits.

When put so succinctly, it really is crazy that people would consider this mutiny and unrest to be worth £300k.

[Vietnam91]

54 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Oh yeah, I absolutely get that and I think there will still be a consistent cohort (although if there's success on the park, perhaps a smaller one) who are opposed to his ownership, albeit they'll be more on the sidelines by the time he takes control/his plan really starts to be embedded, I would imagine. Fitba fans are a fickle bunch, after all...

If this does get voted through, I think a lot of the assumptions the Exec Board appear to be relying on (per Tom at last night's session, anyway) on the WS continuing its contributions at the same levels and being able to co-invest will fall apart. That's when the complete unpreparedness of the plan for such an eventuality will become apparent; I don't think anyone can authoritatively state what will happen in that case; despite the question being asked of the Club by a fair few people.

Without seeing the full heads of terms but using what we have seen it would suggest in the coming years, at six occasions a year apart, the percentage holdings of all shareholders entitle them to secure a certain amount of newly issued shares. If anyone or entity are unable, default or are unwilling to take that up then it will probably go back and offered to others who do wish to take it up. It's why the WS shareholding on the June 10th deal was fluid between 30-odd and 46% confirmed by Derek on SOL. Erik's got loads of lovely cash to purchase these as he's been allowed to buy the club interest free on tic.

That doesn't clear up if and when WS funds are eroded we need to prove a guarantee of funds to cover any shortfall or our accounts will not be signed off at audit and therefore can't be submitted to Companies House. I feel pretty certain if that happens it will be yet again on us to stump up and provide that new guarantee, with "it's your club, WE need to dig deep" spouted. WE already did buddy, again and again, it's always us.

There is some particular irony that funds already committed by the people of this town and surrounding area will end up paying for college funds and the retirement pot of someone living a pretty nice life in California.

McMahon doesn't want to the WS to continue that is plainly evident so he is indifferent if they can meet their obligations, in fact the quicker they run out of money under this bullshit the quicker Erik gets full shareholding control to go with this boardroom control to start divvying up and the subject small talk at LA cocktail parties. "yeah we have 5% in a little Scottish soccer team, it's all the rage".

Unfortunately Tom is trying to be everything to everyone and it's not working. It's impossible to cite how proud you are to be on the board since its inception while voting to kill the same entity while justifying it with a wink, nod and "we'll be OK".

The WS have taken the moral high ground on this and been found to be far more mature, professional and businesslike, methodically working their way through a mountain of shit thrown at them daily from the arrogant, self-professed business experts. If you ever wish to see the distain illustrated look at the reference to the Proposal Document on the club socials only yesterday, 24 hours late with the cyber equivalent of a side eye.

Find us a journalist, fan of any other club or any Motherwell fan with any objectivity to say this is good for the club and our future.

When the dust settles on this we need to tot up what this has cost the club:

• Jim's wee video
• Employing Civica to conduct the election
• Postage and printing costs to those not voting digitally
• Lawyers for the WS
• Lawyers for the club
• Other outside professional services associated with a prospectus and new share drive
• Pretty much sapping a lot of Euro's hype and enjoyment before the national team managed it
• WS board members tied up with this nonsense for 6 months rather than implementing their many new ideas. Where would our season tickets, other investors already waiting in the wings to see the outcome of this vote (yes that really is a thing), etc. be if they were able to focus the same effort into that over this?

McMahon's ego trip has cost the club and society at least £50k which is probably quantifiable but the division and acrimony among our support off the back of this that will way outlast him is immeasurable.

As someone who has sat in four meetings since the turn of the year and watched too many ineffective and weak arguments justified, trust me when I say the biggest obstacles and roadblocks to progressive fan ownership resigned 3 weeks ago (well partly).

However, this is not a referendum on the performance of the WS to date, to consider it as such is short sighted and churlish it's quite simple are you happy to have the piss ripped out of you in the most costly "f**k it, it'll be a laugh?" <shoulder shrug> in our 138 year history.

Edited Thursday at 12:06 by Vietnam91

[CoF]

59 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

1) Barmack (and the Executive Board)'s proposal is rejected and nothing moves forward. The Executive Board have hoist themselves on their own petard and have no choice but to tender their resignations, without the need to call for an Extraordinary General Meeting. The Well Society then appoint a new Chairman, Exec Board representatives and progress with their plan.

 

On this, I think yesterday’s “statement” by the executive board has pretty much finalised their position that if EB’s bid is unsuccessful then they can’t stay on. It was always the case, but there was no acknowledgement at all in the content or tone of that statement which suggests they’re able to work with or value the society.

[StAndrew7]

28 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

When the dust settles on this we need to tot up what this has cost the club:

• Employing Civica to conduct the election
• Postage and printing costs to those not voting digitally

Out of interest, has anyone been spoken to or contacted by the Club to confirm how they wish to vote? I've not had a peep as a shareholder thus far.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

I feel like I'm probably the Barmack camp's target voter. I was too young to properly appreciate administration. I want to see us compete for 3rd again. I've played too much FM. I'm raging we didn't sign KVV. I'm a Well Society member but I don't have any particular emotional attachment to fan ownership as a concept- but if it exists I want to support it as much as possible. I'd like to meet Elizabeth Banks.

I'm still absolutely not voting for it. Call me naive but I really find it hard to believe that there's another 50% of Well Society members that are more pro-Barmack/anti-fan ownership than I am? Impossible to read into the psyche of the Facebook- investment at ALL costs- moonhowlers but the way they talk about the WS they don't strike me as members.

[Archie McSquackle]

Does everyone who has ever made a contribution count as a WS member and are they all eligible for a vote. There was mention that only something like 30% of members still make regular contributions. If people who made a contribution a long time ago are eligible for a vote then they are possibly more likely to be swayed by the proposal. They're probably less likely to vote as well I suppose. 

[StAndrew7]

8 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said:

Does everyone who has ever made a contribution count as a WS member and are they all eligible for a vote. There was mention that only something like 30% of members still make regular contributions. If people who made a contribution a long time ago are eligible for a vote then they are possibly more likely to be swayed by the proposal. They're probably less likely to vote as well I suppose. 

As far as I understand it, all adult (cheers @Pettigrew) members get a vote regardless of their current contribution status, provided they signed up prior to (or maybe on) the 10th of June this year.

Edited Thursday at 12:56 by StAndrew7

[Pettigrew]

1 minute ago, StAndrew7 said:

As far as I understand it, all WS members get a vote regardless of their current contribution status, provided they signed up prior to (or maybe on) the 10th of June this year.

All adult members presumably - large proportion are weans signed up at birth.

[Gallus Numpty]

2 hours ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

Unlucky, Aston.

Chose it himself, I'd guess... I usually pick 13 given the choice, too.

[Vietnam91]

Only thing unlucky about 13 is if you were a medieval warrior monk

[Handsome_Devil]

54 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Out of interest, has anyone been spoken to or contacted by the Club to confirm how they wish to vote? I've not had a peep as a shareholder thus far.

They'll be obliged to use the actual post so you would expect stuff mailed tomorrow to be on your doormat Monday. Options/instructions included.

It's obviously a separate matter to the Society vote and I'd assume the responsibility of the company secretary...when did we last do this, it wouldn't surprise if we're literally tallying up using paper and ink

Edit for an extra thought - in theory there's no need for the Society and club votes for overlap. So I guess they have time if they really needed it... wouldn't seem very practical mind if they think it's going to be close. They could also - I guess - simply not start the official vote and not bother if the 71% shareholder says absolutely not.

But everything is fine at the club, we absolutely do not need a communications person.

Edited Thursday at 13:32 by Handsome_Devil

[Blink182]

39 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said:

Does everyone who has ever made a contribution count as a WS member and are they all eligible for a vote. There was mention that only something like 30% of members still make regular contributions. If people who made a contribution a long time ago are eligible for a vote then they are possibly more likely to be swayed by the proposal. They're probably less likely to vote as well I suppose. 

I do like the idea of the reserve keeper who signed up to the well society as part of the whole "everyone in the squad is a member" we tried for a while is casting a vote on the future of the club. 

The happy retirement to old keepers is making more sense now. Getting them on board to vote the correct way!

[Vietnam91]

From what I understand from asking the question last night was the reason its open for 2 weeks is there will be drive to encourage as many as possible to vote electronically as early as possible. I guess later in the week an audit will be conducted and everyone who hasn't voted will be sent something in the post. This will be to keep costs down. 

[StAndrew7]

31 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

They'll be obliged to use the actual post so you would expect stuff mailed tomorrow to be on your doormat Monday. Options/instructions included.

It's obviously a separate matter to the Society vote and I'd assume the responsibility of the company secretary...when did we last do this, it wouldn't surprise if we're literally tallying up using paper and ink

Edit for an extra thought - in theory there's no need for the Society and club votes for overlap. So I guess they have time if they really needed it... wouldn't seem very practical mind if they think it's going to be close. They could also - I guess - simply not start the official vote and not bother if the 71% shareholder says absolutely not.

But everything is fine at the club, we absolutely do not need a communications person.

I don't think that's strictly legal; I think everything has to be made available to everyone on Monday and that's it? Like all shareholders should have a vote, even if the majority holder is going to vote with or against them?

Edited Thursday at 13:47 by StAndrew7

[Handsome_Devil]

12 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I don't think that's strictly legal; I think everything has to be made available to everyone on Monday and that's it?

If this a formal offer to shareholders, definitely (and without looking back it's what I believe the club said would happen), so yeah, everything available to everyone on Monday for both votes. In practice at least... theoretically the Society could 'summarise' the offer for members who aren't shareholders, if it wished.

But the Society poll is, legally speaking, informal. It can be decided based on whatever information is deemed appropriate. We could - again in theory - simply have the Society poll first and then not bother with a formal offer if it's clear it'll be rejected by the majority shareholder.

Edited Thursday at 13:56 by Handsome_Devil