Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Busta Nut]

23 hours ago, Gianfranco said:

One of the Instagram type posts said we’d had record sales on the top earlier in the week. Don’t know if they meant just in that period?

It was the first time in years they've released a top before the fair though eh?

4 hours ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

I can't really keep up with all these Derek Watsons, Derek Wilsons and Andrew Wilsons. Is there an Andrew Watson?

Good guy, good guy, w**k. Wasn't Andy Watson Big Eck's assistant?

[Busta Nut]

I canny believe the club wasn't run into the ground before now with these dicks all onboard.

[capt_oats]

3 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

I canny believe the club wasn't run into the ground before now with these dicks all onboard.

Aye. I've said it before but worth saying it again, if it wasn't obvious before it's pretty fucking clear now who it was running the club and making it a success over the past however many years.

[capt_oats]

Hahahahahahahaha!

Fucking YAS!

That entire article is...

[Busta Nut]

 

I'd also like to say, if you are in favour of the Barmack deal, you are a fucking idiot.

There's been a few folk said or suggested it and were asked to speak a bit softer but f**k that. Only a moron is still in favour of it.

Past caring who's feelings get hurt.

[Doctor Manhattan]

14 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

Past caring who's feelings get hurt.

[rowsdower]

16 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

 

I'd also like to say, if you are in favour of the Barmack deal, you are a fucking idiot.

There's been a few folk said or suggested it and were asked to speak a bit softer but f**k that. Only a moron is still in favour of it.

Past caring who's feelings get hurt.

I'm right with you there. I've seen a couple of folk say that an offer like this might never come around again (I fucking hope so), but can't provide any reason for supporting it other than jibes against the Well society, which many of them aren't a member of.

I genuinely don't know what some folk think they're getting.

On hurt feelings, f**k that. There was one person that literally said they're voting for the proposal because the WS hurt their feelings. What a world.

Edited July 7 by rowsdower

[Doctor Manhattan]

15 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

That entire article is...

There's one on the BBC as well, albeit much less detailed and less overtly scathing. I notice that no actual journalist has seen fit to put their name to either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy08exp197ro

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, rowsdower said:

I genuinely don't know what some folk think they're getting.

I think a lot of them think they guys still at Netflix, with all the money/relationships to millionaires that brings, and not the head of an indie company that has 30 followers on Twitter.

[dezz]

2 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

There's one on the BBC as well, albeit much less detailed and less overtly scathing. I notice that no actual journalist has seen fit to put their name to either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy08exp197ro

I think it’s Gavin McCafferty that’s fighting the good fight with the articles. 

[rowsdower]

18 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Hahahahahahahaha!

Fucking YAS!

That entire article is...

The Executive Board wish to recognize the article posted on STV News about inconsistencies and in response would like to state that "I know you are but what am I?"

[Savage Henry]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

I think a lot of them think they guys still at Netflix, with all the money/relationships to millionaires that brings, and not the head of an indie company that has 30 followers on Twitter.

Wrexham II, I think. 
 

What an absolute catastrophe that has become - irrespective of results on the pitch.  

[Vietnam91]

Club personnel thumbing the scale to the detriment of the majority shareholder.

Inconsistency of being told we’re well run and not in any financial peril and how community is key. To we need this money otherwise we’re in a bad place, its not looking rosy without it and killing community ownership.

WS directors including the co-chairmann of the WS and club, acting as a backchannel to Barmack and lying to their fellow WS board members.

WS reps on the club board voting with their own views, without coming back to the WS board for direction prior.

Using incorrect financial figures and forecasts in the same document, easily seen in the ensuing mea culpa admission from the “expert” author later in the comments of the same Twitter post.

Un-costed plan pulling numbers out of thin air rather in reality. Further illustrated by people who work in those fields and industries blowing holes in it. i.e. Suggesting 50k downloads and revenue from a £100k app.

The Barmack scheme ideas, there’s nothing there the WS directing the CEO can’t achieve themselves bar the documentary. Take well known brand names out the equation, if anyone else submitted this it would be destroyed by those currently making excuses for it.

Advising no additional debt will be taken on in club statements and in HoT however the Barmack scheme illustrates a spend of £1.3m in excess of income at buyback stage.

No costings for staff to run and administer all these grand schemes, just the product, unless the AI will do that.

No idea if the club asked for evidence of the Barmack’s affordability and ability to adhere to the terms of the £1.95m scheme commitment.

No detail on who would act as club guarantor at audit in the event of WS funds being eroded to zero. In fact admitted by board member not discussed.

Becomes: “As an outsider who has spent months on this potential investment, we can say first-hand that it’s not always clear how the majority shareholder gets involved in the Club’s governance.”

No detail despite repeated questions on what happens if there is a default or inability to meet obligations (negotiated by the club board in isolation) which put requirements in excess of the WS’s current revenue generation.

Every contingency was not discussed, detailed, defined, liability attributed nor costed. Evidenced purely by the lack of anything tangible.

The enterprise value by the club of £7.7m appears to be gross and not net debt. Reasoning given does not pass muster nor tally.

The club board are walking a very thin tightrope on legality and their own fiduciary responsibilities here. Therefore, considering all the above we are getting a flawed prospectus that is wide open to legal challenge.

[rowsdower]

The Wrexham thing didn't blow up because some Americans bought it and made a TV show. It's big because Deadpool and Mac bought a football team in Wales. Interesting that that's the one example of American investment that everyone looks to, while the others are ignored.

We have behind the scenes content all season long, available to the entire planet for free on youtube. No one fucking watches it, but there are folk that would rip the soul out of the club just so they can watch that on a Freeview roku channel.

[RandomGuy.]

14 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

Wrexham II, I think. 
 

What an absolute catastrophe that has become - irrespective of results on the pitch.  

Yeah it's becoming clearer and clearer that one relegation/the show dying, will effectively kill that club.

Over £9m worth of debt now, plus the mental wage bill they've got years to get through, and absolutely no way of avoiding that fucking them beyond praying 2 businessmen who treat it as a joke decide to just write that off.

Edited July 7 by RandomGuy.

[Swello]

38 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

The more Graham Keys tries to gaslight folk in the comments of Andrew Wilson's the clearer it becomes that they (the Executive Board) genuinely don't understand the objections. It's like @Busta Nut spoke about Feeley being "baffled".

They simply don't get it on a fundamental basis.

I've been working on the assumption that folk were being disingenuous about the WS - but as you say, it's becoming clear that they are simply not picking up on the idea that the WS will be negatively affected as a result of a "yes".  This is particularly revealing as it is actually called out as a risk in the Wild Sheep proposal ("Rapid decline in fan engagement") - it's almost as if they haven't read the thing that they are pushing...

The fact is that the WS contributions come from rank and file supporters, many of whom won't be awash with spare disposable cash - so the blithe assumption that these people will - based on other people's business plans -  live with increased contributions come what may is gobsmackingly arrogant.

[thisGRAEME]

7 minutes ago, Swello said:

The fact is that the WS contributions come from rank and file supporters, many of whom won't be awash with spare disposable cash - so the blithe assumption that these people will - based on other people's business plans -  live with increased contributions come what may is gobsmackingly arrogant.

When you consider how they've been treating the society board members throughout this process, this becomes less and less surprising.

There's a quote from Dempster (whatever you think of her) during her time where she explained she was aware that so many clubs just took the fans for granted, that they'd turn up every week regardless, and that she wouldn't, because that's mad behaviour. Evidently didn't rub off.

19 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Club personnel thumbing the scale to the detriment of the majority shareholder.

Inconsistency of being told we’re well run and not in any financial peril and how community is key. To we need this money otherwise we’re in a bad place, its not looking rosy without it and killing community ownership.

WS directors including the co-chairmann of the WS and club, acting as a backchannel to Barmack and lying to their fellow WS board members.

WS reps on the club board voting with their own views, without coming back to the WS board for direction prior.

Using incorrect financial figures and forecasts in the same document, easily seen in the ensuing mea culpa admission from the “expert” author later in the comments of the same Twitter post.

Un-costed plan pulling numbers out of thin air rather in reality. Further illustrated by people who work in those fields and industries blowing holes in it. i.e. Suggesting 50k downloads and revenue from a £100k app.

The Barmack scheme ideas, there’s nothing there the WS directing the CEO can’t achieve themselves bar the documentary. Take well known brand names out the equation, if anyone else submitted this it would be destroyed by those currently making excuses for it.

Advising no additional debt will be taken on in club statements and in HoT however the Barmack scheme illustrates a spend of £1.3m in excess of income at buyback stage.

No costings for staff to run and administer all these grand schemes, just the product, unless the AI will do that.

No idea if the club asked for evidence of the Barmack’s affordability and ability to adhere to the terms of the £1.95m scheme commitment.

No detail on who would act as club guarantor at audit in the event of WS funds being eroded to zero. In fact admitted by board member not discussed.

Becomes: “As an outsider who has spent months on this potential investment, we can say first-hand that it’s not always clear how the majority shareholder gets involved in the Club’s governance.”

No detail despite repeated questions on what happens if there is a default or inability to meet obligations (negotiated by the club board in isolation) which put requirements in excess of the WS’s current revenue generation.

Every contingency was not discussed, detailed, defined, liability attributed nor costed. Evidenced purely by the lack of anything tangible.

The enterprise value by the club of £7.7m appears to be gross and not net debt. Reasoning given does not pass muster nor tally.

The club board are walking a very thin tightrope on legality and their own fiduciary responsibilities here. Therefore, considering all the above we are getting a flawed prospectus that is wide open to legal challenge.

LOUDER FOR THOSE IN THE BACK.

I have to say I'm entirely with @Busta Nut on this as well. I'm tired of all of this. This is very clearly absolute garbage and I'm now just fucking angry about it.

 

[Doctor Manhattan]

8 minutes ago, Swello said:

they are simply not picking up on the idea that the WS will be negatively affected as a result of a "yes". 

"negatively affected"? Think "rapid unscheduled disassembly"!

[Handsome_Devil]

57 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

The more Graham Keys tries to gaslight folk in the comments of Andrew Wilson's the clearer it becomes that they (the Executive Board) genuinely don't understand the objections. It's like @Busta Nut spoke about Feeley being "baffled".

They simply don't get it on a fundamental basis.

Given I was one of the ones engaging with Keys, I would, bizarrely, actually defend him quite robustly here.

Yes, I obviously strongly disagree and you can definitely say he's inside a boardroom bubble when it comes to how the Society will react post yes vote.

But unlike the headline-only readers, he has enough gumption to construct an argument based on loose facts and is willing to stick his head above the parapet to engage.

A bit of robust debate never did any harm and there'll be plenty to come after the vote as well when the details of the Society's plans need put into practice.

The fact that it's fallen to the company secretary (I think?) to promote their cause while the outgoing chairman avoids scrutiny and Barmack skirts the edge of the law is quite damning...but I think he genuinely believes this is the best way forward.

[Handsome_Devil]

54 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

There's one on the BBC as well, albeit much less detailed and less overtly scathing. I notice that no actual journalist has seen fit to put their name to either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy08exp197ro

They've just taken the PA story, there's no byline needed for STV or the BBC. Mega hat-tip to McCafferty though, always great to see life in the old agency yet...!