Well Fan Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1979 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 hours ago, steelmen said: i completely missed this part, granted i never really read EB's doc. If this is his plan, i hope the society loses his phone number after this original deal is rejected. “Although both groups will have three representatives on the board, Erik Barmack will have a casting vote as chairman and the deal stipulates that Wild Sheep will develop overall strategy in conjunction with two club executives. The Well Society is only entitled to ‘discuss’ these key decisions. Oh, it was always a case of Wild Sheep Sports wanting our money (over a million quid of it, the cheeky sods), but then wanting us to sit in the corner and let the "professionals" spend it. I wonder where they got the idea that such a setup was possible? For too long the executive board have carried out their work unchecked and without real scrutiny. Let's hope this whole carry-on brings that to an end. 2 hours ago, capt_oats said: It's getting to the stage where I'm beginning to wonder if, given the extreme kicking this is taking publicly, whether it would even be able to go through in any credible way even if it was voted for. There's also the possibility that such a badly put-together plan is wide open for legal challenge on a number of fronts. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said: Lol @ Jim's statement still having one mention of "Barmark" in it. I should correct the record here; I just noticed this is a mistake from the statement posted on the 5th of July, not yesterday's car crash. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Just to give credit where it's due, I mailed the club a query yesterday afternoon and had a definitive reply by this morning. (It wasn't anything terribly exciting, I was confirming the money saved from transfers was cumulative rather than only applying to single fees over £2m, which it is) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Electro Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 45 minutes ago, David1979 said: There's also the possibility that such a badly put-together plan is wide open for legal challenge on a number of fronts. Especially if you are a septic with scant knowledge of UK law. Due diligence, anyone? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Kirk Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said: See Liam Gordon saying he had a phone call with Stuart Kettlewell about signing, lasted 50 minutes Kettlewell’s phone must have ran out of charge 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Just now, Handsome_Devil said: Just to give credit where it's due, I mailed the club a query yesterday afternoon and had a definitive reply by this morning. (It wasn't anything terribly exciting, I was confirming the money saved from transfers was cumulative rather than only applying to single fees over £2m, which it is) Aye, I sent over quite a few questions a number of weeks ago and David got back to me with a comprehensive reply within a day, if not quicker. I had wondered about that myself; it's also 30% of everything above the £2m mark isn't it? So say Miller goes for £3m, that would mean £300k is put in escrow from that, but if Bair goes at £1.5m before that (and it happens when Barmark is involved), that means it'll be £830k from the Miller deal (roughly)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post For Your Pies Only Posted July 9 Popular Post Share Posted July 9 3 hours ago, Swello said: At this rate, I'm expecting articles in the New York Times, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Corriere della Sera by the end of the week. James Richardson: "Steelmen Controversia!" screams the headline of today's Gazzetto... 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Aye, I sent over quite a few questions a number of weeks ago and David got back to me with a comprehensive reply within a day, if not quicker. I had wondered about that myself; it's also 30% of everything above the £2m mark isn't it? So say Miller goes for £3m, that would mean £300k is put in escrow from that, but if Bair goes at £1.5m before that (and it happens when Barmark is involved), that means it'll be £830k from the Miller deal (roughly)? My understanding is it's 30% of the net values above £2m. The club example said we'd receive £3m in cash for a £3.5m fee...so: If we sell Bair for 1.5 but get 1.3 (and this is just guessing), sell Miller for 3 but get 2.7, that's £4m in net fees, of which 600k ((4-2)x0.3) would go into the buyback pot. In that regard, if you believe we'll sell Miller and Bair for £4m+, the club's logic about the buyback as a safety net works. Even if you think we won't get quite that much, it'll take us well on the way. Ofc it doesn't address the flip logic of why we're dropping our pants for pennies if we have millions coming. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 1 minute ago, Handsome_Devil said: Ofc it doesn't address the flip logic of why we're dropping our pants for pennies if we have millions coming. Yes - both things can't be true. Also wonder why the "buyback pot" theory can't just be put into practice regardless...It's the way that we paid off Les Hutchinson as far as I remember. The owners building up a pot when the club makes windfall transfer profits seems like a sound idea (even if it is not at 30%) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Swello said: Yes - both things can't be true. I'm sure they won't phrase it this way but I bet the theory is roughly we know we don't have Bair/Miller in the valuation but we know we'll sell them, this then funds Erik's ideas (along with his 300k which proves interest) while - conveniently - the amount we'll roughly take from the 30% can reassure the WS with the escape clause. I bet McMahon thinks this is a win for us (we get EB's ideas and see where we go), a win for EB (he doesn't have to fund them much) and a win for the Society (chuck in 400k like you half planned anyway and Miller/Bair fund your parachute). Edit to add: From his starting point of view - the WS are incompetent and can't be trusted - it makes perfect sense. It falls down when everyone points out we can just do this ourselves. Edited July 9 by Handsome_Devil 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 6 minutes ago, Swello said: Yes - both things can't be true. Also wonder why the "buyback pot" theory can't just be put into practice regardless...It's the way that we paid off Les Hutchinson as far as I remember. The owners building up a pot when the club makes windfall transfer profits seems like a sound idea (even if it is not at 30%) Mentioned it before but this was a model that Flow and McMahon spoke of investigating for bringing in investment at the AGM I was at pre-Pandemic. It was either 2018 or 2019. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: I'm sure they won't phrase it this way but I bet the theory is roughly we know we don't have Bair/Miller in the valuation but we know we'll sell them, this then funds Erik's ideas (along with his 300k which proves interest) while - conveniently the amount we'll roughly take from the 30% can reassure the WS with the escape clause. I bet McMahon thinks this is a win for us (we get EB's ideas and see where we go), a win for EB (he doesn't have to fund them much) and a win for the Society (chuck in 400k like you half planned anyway and Miller/Bair fund your parachute). I agree in that I can totally see the logic in it, but it absolutely doesn't account for the ridiculous spending plan in "strategic projects" in the first 4 years, nor does it highlight that even with the 400k, the Society still needs to effectively drain its accounts to fund the buyback, with us then having no "rescue pot" because the transfer fees going into the Club will have been spent on Erik's wacky schemes. 5 minutes ago, capt_oats said: Mentioned it before but this was a model that Flow and McMahon spoke of investigating for bringing in investment at the AGM I was at pre-Pandemic. It was either 2018 or 2019. Aye, I remember it being thrown about; was it not 25% of the Club and a share of transfer fees for a set investment into the playing squad, youth development or something? It was mentioned in passing at this year's I thought, too, or perhaps in the aftermath. Edited July 9 by StAndrew7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 (edited) 11 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I agree in that I can totally see the logic in it, but it absolutely doesn't account for the ridiculous spending plan in "strategic projects" in the first 4 years, nor does it highlight that even with the 400k, the Society still needs to effectively drain its accounts to fund the buyback, with us then having no "rescue pot" because the transfer fees going into the Club will have been spent on Erik's wacky schemes. Aye, it's only a rough theory... I don't have the figures to hand to compare and there's obviously regular expenses to factor in but from our starting point, you can say that's £3.4m in fees for Erik to play with, plus his 600k and our 400k to make £4.4m pre buyback option.That's not covering everything I'm sure but it's some start and while I'm not an expert I'm sure that must build you a hell of an app... So my issue here is actually less with the numbers but why the hell we're bothering...start with the £3-4m we're hoping to make on the duo and the revamped Society can kick in as well. We're back to giving away nearly half the club, immediate control and all our security for a few hundred k because, TV apart, all of Erik's other ideas are either fucking stupid or can be implemented by anyone. Edited July 9 by Handsome_Devil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 2 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: Aye, it's only a rough theory... I don't have the figures to hand to compare and there's obviously regular expenses to factor in but from our starting point, you can say that's £3.4m in fees for Erik to play with, plus his 600k and our 400k to make £4.4m pre buyback option.That's not covering everything I'm sure but it's some start and while I'm not an expert I'm sure that must build you a hell of an app... So my issue here is actually less with the numbers but why the hell we're bothering...start with the £3-4m we're hoping to make on the duo and the revamped Society can kick in as well. We're back to giving away nearly half the club, immediate control and all our security for a few hundred k because, TV apart, all of Erik's other ideas are either fucking stupid or can be implemented by anyone. Yup. Also, fitba's quite gid, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Just now, StAndrew7 said: Yup. Also, fitba's quite gid, eh? The club obviously haven't said if they're streaming Saturday's game yet but I can't bloody wait just to shout at the telly again! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Just now, Handsome_Devil said: The club obviously haven't said if they're streaming Saturday's game yet but I can't bloody wait just to shout at the telly again! It's available on Premier Sports Player; not sure what that means for you as an "outsider" though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
standupforthemotherwell Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Buying a club based on the receipt of future income? Has the feeling of "Motherwell born billionaire" about it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Electro Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 9 minutes ago, standupforthemotherwell said: Buying a club based on the receipt of future income? Has the feeling of "Motherwell born billionaire" about it Wasn't the Sevco imposter a Motherwell born millionaire. As a scientist your marketed calories aren't; they're kilocalories. Puts Craig Whyte into perspective/or his box..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Someone has missed a trick not doing REJECT BARMACK t-shirts tbqh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.