Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[David1979]

One thing that is absolutely astounding about all of this is that the Heads of Terms mention:

"The WS commitment is £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three" yet nothing else is clarified.

Here's my question - What happens if the Well Society can't make that commitment at any point? There has to be repercussions? Otherwise, why even quote a number? 

Now, in the absence of any information on the penalties for missed payments, despite me asking Erik outright and him providing a vague answer about how penalties aren't included in Heads of Terms, let's have a look at some of the penalties I've seen enacted in the past, and how they could apply to the Well Society:

 Equity Dilution:

• What Could Happen: The Well Society’s ownership stake in the club could be reduced.
• How It Works: If the Society misses a payment, more shares could be issued to Wild Sheep Sports (WSS), decreasing the Society’s ownership percentage (in fairness, Erik says this shouldn't be the case, but you'll note the use of the word "shouldn't" rather than "wouldn't". Besides, I don't think a claim made on a football forum would stand up in court if he decided to enact this option.

Financial Penalties:

• What Could Happen: The Society might have to pay additional fees or interest.
• How It Works: The agreement could include a clause that charges interest or fixed penalties for missed payments, increasing the amount the Society owes.

Reduction of Benefits:

• What Could Happen: The Society could lose certain privileges.
• How It Works: Benefits like voting rights on certain issues or access to club facilities might be reduced or suspended until the missed payments are made.

Acceleration Clause:

• What Could Happen: The Society could be required to pay the remaining balance immediately.
• How It Works: Missing one payment could trigger a requirement to pay all remaining committed funds upfront.

Loss of Buyback Option:

• What Could Happen: The Society could lose the option to buy back shares.
• How It Works: If the Society fails to meet financial commitments, they might forfeit the option to buy back shares from WSS.

Or, it could even be the following, which is the one I'm particularly concerned about outside of the first option:

Impact on Existing Loan:

What Could Happen: The £868,000 loan from the Society to the club could be affected. Well, the £434,000 that would remain after 50% of the original amount is converted into shares to help the Well Society maintain a 50.1% majority shareholding in a football club that it would have previously held over 70% in.

How It Works:

• Debt Forgiveness Negotiation: If the Society fails to meet its financial commitments, the club could negotiate to have the loan forgiven in exchange for the Society being forgiven for not making its required payments.

It should be mentioned at this point that the Well Society loan is currently secured against the stadium. And more importantly, the ground it sits on.

All of a sudden that "clean balance sheet" looks really attractive. Why? For the following reasons:

Release of Security:

• What Happens: If the loan is forgiven, the security (the stadium) associated with the loan would be released. This means the stadium would no longer be collateral for the debt since the debt itself would be eliminated.
• Implication: Without the loan, the club would own the stadium free and clear of that specific debt obligation.

Potential Increased Control for Wild Sheep Sports:

• Scenario: If Wild Sheep Sports becomes the majority shareholder, and the loan is forgiven, they could have increased control over the club’s assets, including the stadium.
• Implication: WSS, as the majority shareholder, would have significant influence over decisions regarding the stadium, including the possibility of selling it.

Now, it might be the case that none of the above would apply. 

Or, indeed, any or a combination of the above could apply. We don't know, because no one is telling us. All we know is that Wild Sheep Sports is extremely eager to eliminate the loan the club has from the Well Society. As soon as a vote to approve Barmack's offer happens the loan is reduced immediately by 50%. Which leaves only 50% to get out the way.

Now, I could be wrong. I just wonder if the information on those penalties will be provided in good time for the membership to scrutinise before voting?

[capt_oats]

On 02/07/2024 at 21:28, RandomGuy. said:

FWIW

System says the most similar Motherwell full back is Jake Carroll (2019/20), which will mean more to you than me probably.

This seemed to get lost in the mix with all the other nonsense that's been going on. Fwiw, I thought Jake Carroll was absolutely fine - he was our left back in a team that finished 3rd*.

Doing a bit of digging on other forums there didn't seem to be that much of a strong opinion about him one way or another however I noticed this comment on the Oxford forum:

Quote

"Seddon was a good athlete, had a bit of pace and a decent left foot. But weirdly, had zero appreciation of space and couldn't defend. I don't ever remember him making a tackle."

It's probably worth putting it into context that in the system we use the defensive side is less of an issue as the wing backs are effectively playing as left mids and neither Furlong or Gent started from a particularly great base defensively although they were clearly younger.

So;

Good athlete
Bit of pace
Good left foot
Bit weak defensively

Of our 9 (NINE) new signings so far only one has been a loan so that's something I guess.

[scmwell]

 

[capt_oats]

[steelmen]

8 hours ago, David1979 said:

One thing that is absolutely astounding about all of this is that the Heads of Terms mention:

"The WS commitment is £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three" yet nothing else is clarified.

Here's my question - What happens if the Well Society can't make that commitment at any point? There has to be repercussions? Otherwise, why even quote a number? 

Now, in the absence of any information on the penalties for missed payments, despite me asking Erik outright and him providing a vague answer about how penalties aren't included in Heads of Terms, let's have a look at some of the penalties I've seen enacted in the past, and how they could apply to the Well Society:

 Equity Dilution:

• What Could Happen: The Well Society’s ownership stake in the club could be reduced.
• How It Works: If the Society misses a payment, more shares could be issued to Wild Sheep Sports (WSS), decreasing the Society’s ownership percentage (in fairness, Erik says this shouldn't be the case, but you'll note the use of the word "shouldn't" rather than "wouldn't". Besides, I don't think a claim made on a football forum would stand up in court if he decided to enact this option.

Financial Penalties:

• What Could Happen: The Society might have to pay additional fees or interest.
• How It Works: The agreement could include a clause that charges interest or fixed penalties for missed payments, increasing the amount the Society owes.

Reduction of Benefits:

• What Could Happen: The Society could lose certain privileges.
• How It Works: Benefits like voting rights on certain issues or access to club facilities might be reduced or suspended until the missed payments are made.

Acceleration Clause:

• What Could Happen: The Society could be required to pay the remaining balance immediately.
• How It Works: Missing one payment could trigger a requirement to pay all remaining committed funds upfront.

Loss of Buyback Option:

• What Could Happen: The Society could lose the option to buy back shares.
• How It Works: If the Society fails to meet financial commitments, they might forfeit the option to buy back shares from WSS.

Or, it could even be the following, which is the one I'm particularly concerned about outside of the first option:

Impact on Existing Loan:

What Could Happen: The £868,000 loan from the Society to the club could be affected. Well, the £434,000 that would remain after 50% of the original amount is converted into shares to help the Well Society maintain a 50.1% majority shareholding in a football club that it would have previously held over 70% in.

How It Works:

• Debt Forgiveness Negotiation: If the Society fails to meet its financial commitments, the club could negotiate to have the loan forgiven in exchange for the Society being forgiven for not making its required payments.

It should be mentioned at this point that the Well Society loan is currently secured against the stadium. And more importantly, the ground it sits on.

All of a sudden that "clean balance sheet" looks really attractive. Why? For the following reasons:

Release of Security:

• What Happens: If the loan is forgiven, the security (the stadium) associated with the loan would be released. This means the stadium would no longer be collateral for the debt since the debt itself would be eliminated.
• Implication: Without the loan, the club would own the stadium free and clear of that specific debt obligation.

Potential Increased Control for Wild Sheep Sports:

• Scenario: If Wild Sheep Sports becomes the majority shareholder, and the loan is forgiven, they could have increased control over the club’s assets, including the stadium.
• Implication: WSS, as the majority shareholder, would have significant influence over decisions regarding the stadium, including the possibility of selling it.

Now, it might be the case that none of the above would apply. 

Or, indeed, any or a combination of the above could apply. We don't know, because no one is telling us. All we know is that Wild Sheep Sports is extremely eager to eliminate the loan the club has from the Well Society. As soon as a vote to approve Barmack's offer happens the loan is reduced immediately by 50%. Which leaves only 50% to get out the way.

Now, I could be wrong. I just wonder if the information on those penalties will be provided in good time for the membership to scrutinise before voting?

I asked him the same thing 3 times, ignored once and the third time gave some waffle about how his investment would increase the society

 

I think the true answer is, the fact we are buying shares with the money (despite our holding reducing) we just won’t be able to buy those shares and it will be left to others to buy thus making the 51% the society is supposed to have unreachable. Suppose the 50% of the loan we are not forgiving could be used to pay for 2 years worth of shares.

 

just typing that has me wondering. We have around £1m in the bank at the society? That plus the £400k that will be left of the loan means even if the society doesn’t raise any more money that’s enough for the society‘s forced commmitment. Wonder if that’s the plan, let’s get our hands on all that money the society has. Why should it sit in their account when we can use it.

[Ron Aldo]

Erik can get to f**k already. A complete fucking charlatan. 

[MurrayWell]

ChatGPT isn't really up to much eh? 

[Handsome_Devil]

He's actually toned down the mental stuff so that his plans (ignoring haggling over the precise numbers) in general look pretty reasonable. However, that then begs the question of just why we need to give away half the club, and immediate control, for a song, because literally the only real advantage he brings his the production experience. 

That combined with the other red flags mean it remains a firm no for me.

As he acknowledges, there's understandable suspicion of outsiders. Well, the obvious way to negate that is to make an offer which protects the long-term future of the club should this go wrong and leaves him carrying a fair share of the risk. It's frustrating to read because it does create the feeling there could be a partnership here until you remember the details, then the 'opportunistic, chancing b*****d' feeling returns!

Edited Friday at 07:51 by Handsome_Devil

[Phillips455]

If Erik was really serious, he would have promised to go and buy Mika with his own money.

 

 

[Ill Ray]

I kinda liked the Barmack proposal more than the Well Society’s ngl. 

[capt_oats]

1 minute ago, Handsome_Devil said:

He's actually toned down the mental stuff so that his plans (ignoring haggling over the precise numbers) in general look pretty reasonable. However, that then begs the question of just why we need to give away half the club, and immediate control, for a song, because literally the real advantage he brings his the production experience. 

That combined with the other red flags mean it remains a firm no for me.

As he acknowledges, there's understandable suspicion of outsiders. Well, the obvious way to negate that is to make an offer which protects the long-term future of the club should this go wrong and leaves him carrying a fair share of the risk. It's frustrating to read because it does create the feeling there could be a partnership here until you remember the details, then the 'opportunistic, chancing b*****d' feeling returns!

Aye. I mean, I'd already decided it was a firm "No" ages ago so it is what it is in that respect however the "wE nEeD iVesTmENt tO cOmPEte!!!" crowd would do well to notice this part:

Quote

"We do not advocate increasing the budget of the player pool without first increasing revenue to the Club."

Lads, they're not going to chuck money at players.

It's just a very generic document that shouldn't really compel anyone into effectively giving away half the club.

[Handsome_Devil]

4 minutes ago, Ill Ray said:

I kinda liked the Barmack proposal more than the Well Society’s ngl. 

Why? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious, as apart from his telly bit there's little difference (which is to be expected).

I definitely don't think his plans there are unreasonable or unrealistic but that's not a reason to vote yes when the other side of it remains a bucket of shit.

[thisGRAEME]

6 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

It's just a very generic document that shouldn't really compel anyone into effectively giving away half the club.

Feels massively vague, with costings all over the place to me.

There's also a bunch of language in there I use when trying to sound convincing on a pitch. 

[standupforthemotherwell]

Lots of things in that document which seem good on the surface but there is no real reason why they can't be taken forward with the Well Society at the helm.

Interesting that he mentions the difference in comms between the WS strategy and his own proposals by the club. I assume that he has realised the feeling towards the current board and is trying to distance himself from them in case the vote passes

[welldaft]

Well at least he did stick to his word and submit a proposal. It is probably better than I thought it would be. Although a lot is generic it is more detailed than I expected. 

Does not change the fact that the headline terms of his initial proposal are simply not that attractive. 

In a way I would kind of like him involved. I think he has some good ideas and between him and the WS could take the club forward. But my own personal feeling is that we still need better terms and the only way to get that will be to knock back and decline his initial / revised proposal and see what happens next. Whether he walks away which on the face of it would be fine. Or whether he makes enough changes to get the majority of fans like myself on board. 

Edited Friday at 08:04 by welldaft

[Ill Ray]

2 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Why? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious, as apart from his telly bit there's little difference (which is to be expected).

I definitely don't think his plans there are unreasonable or unrealistic but that's not a reason to vote yes when the other side of it remains a bucket of shit.

I believe that there is room for growth in globalisation and think that a club from the spfl with a docuseries could hugely benefit from being first to market with that  in terms of growing interest internationally and even growing the Well Society outside of the UK. WS growth and supporter growth I’m pessimistic about domestically with us being so close to the Old Firm that’s weighed us down significantly and limited how ‘big’ a club we can be here this just seems like it could be a change from the status quo by trying some left field ideas.

He is talking as well about investment opportunities and lists naming the stadium which should be done as people will just call it Fir Park anyway. 
 

The line regarding community growth as well aligns with the WS and our interests and growing the academy with significant investment into training facilities etc is a tick. 

I understand the risk involved to the Well Society but for an investment to go alongside fan ownership we may have to accept some risk involved. I think if the deal proposed goes through I would increase my contributions to WS per month as well because he mentions an app where we can influence decisions made which would see a lot of engagement from society members and may seem ‘inactives’ come back. Anecdotally from me I had been a WS member for years and cancelled in COVID as my partner said what does the Well Society even do or what involvement do you have and I said idk and cancelled it as we were struggling and reactivated contributions out of concern during videogate.

I feel like the proposal was done well in general and palatable for a lot of Motherwell fans. 

 

A general point - I’m desperate we try and improve the club as I feel since the cup final seasons there hasn’t been a season I’ve overly enjoyed, it’s been a bit flat. 
 

 

[Vietnam91]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Holden

Two years in, buyback enacted:

Green ("Investments" - lot of poetic justice here, 200k of it is a levy) = £1m

Blue (Costs) = £2.81m

Red (Income "projected") = £0.5m

Anyone else see not a £1.31m hole here? If the WS proposal document magicked up money for spending way above revenue streams they'd be pilloried.

So £1.31m in the red, no income raised by the WS for 2 years to contribute the mandated amount, £600k needed to ensure Erik's payments are covered and £30k for his trouble.

Can we get fucking serious, please for the love God!!!!!!

[Handsome_Devil]

4 minutes ago, Ill Ray said:

I believe that there is room for growth in globalisation and think that a club from the spfl with a docuseries could hugely benefit from being first to market with that  in terms of growing interest internationally and even growing the Well Society outside of the UK. 

...

I feel like the proposal was done well in general and palatable for a lot of Motherwell fans. 

I don't really disagree with most of that and see an appeal from the upside he offers. But the majority of the details, selling the stadium name, banking on youth development etc is absolutely bog standard, and can easily be done without him.

The TV bit has always been interesting and exciting for sure but handing over control, probably killing the Society (fair play to you for increasing if it goes through but I seriously doubt there'd be a net gain here in terms of cash or engagement), losing the safety net around FP...it's not just taking some risk, it's taking an absolutely massive risk on the word of a total random, who still refuses to specify how he intends to profit, for £1.5-£1.6m in real terms. Given we'll sell Bair for about a million and have Miller waiting to go, jumping on a risk/reward which is so skewed for an amount that low just seems daft.

[tree house tam]

1 hour ago, Ron Aldo said:

Erik can get to f**k already. A complete fucking charlatan. 

Which should have been said in the first five minutes if meeting the c**t.

[Busta Nut]

1 hour ago, Ron Aldo said:

Erik can get to f**k already. A complete fucking charlatan. 

Been here for a while. 

Guy is a snake oil salesman.