Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons

[Vietnam91]

Reposted from SOL with permission of Colin, just to emphasise they're not all bad:

Quote

This whole situation goes from bad to worse.

So we learn our Chairman (and others) strongly endorsed a Business Plan he had not read or tested, presented by a gentleman with no experience in football. At the same time the owners of the Club were excluded from any meaningful discussions. Rather than undertake his legal responsibilities the Chairman turned the spotlight and pressure on the Well Society possibly in the hope they would come up short and the deal would be waved through.  And now we are in a state of concern awaiting the outcome of a vote that should not have been forced upon us.

Just let that sink in for a minute. Jim McMahon is the man we trust to safeguard our football club.  Hardly points to him adhering to his duty to act in the best interests of MFC and the Shareholders.  

Following diligence shown by the Society Board (including the production of a document detailing a practical and realistic way forward) coupled with numerous valid questions being asked by a concerned fan base, we are now told that no plan was presented to the Exec Board. I assume the other Club Board Members just accepted assurances given by Messrs McMahon, Dickie and Feeley?  Not one of the projections or assumptions had been investigated it seems prior to recommendation. By anyone! So no inaccuracies, financial miscalculations or vague promises are anything to do with the Executive Board. Really?

Those other Exec Board members, who must now be embarrassed by the truth of the whole situation, should intervene to bring this farce to an end. Then both Boards can work in harmony to identify a way ahead that is in the interest of all parties and secures the future of our Club. 

And given the fact that only now has the full background become known....days after the vote opened.....how valid is that vote? Would some folk have voted differently had the full background been known to them?

Some Legacy this Mr McMahon.

 

[thisGRAEME]

43 minutes ago, Squonk said:

'Glib and shameless liar' Dave King was deemed suitable, so Barmack wouldn't have a problem.

Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi, Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe would sail through the SFA's less than rigorous 'fit and proper' test.

I'll just slip on my blazer here and offer a gentle defence of this, as we've seen down south; These 'tests' don't work anyway. 

Don't introduce rules you can't actually enforce, as basically any legal challenge in the EPL/EFL over the last decade has shown. The clubs have more spenny lawyers at all times who'll chuck that money into a fire to get what they want, regardless of any rules and regs. If clubs are daft enough to invite these people into their boardroom, then that's their problem. 

[Handsome_Devil]

20 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Mental that we're going to sell him for £1m next.

But here we are...

If he keeps going like this we'll need a contract extension by the end of August...

[steelmen]

13 minutes ago, Vietnam91 said:

Reposted from SOL with permission of Colin, just to emphasise they're not all bad:

 

there is more and more coming out about this process that amazes me that it has gotten as far as a vote, although once the club announced a vote would be held, the society board had to go along with it or else be left looking the bad guys running scared from investment.

In saying it amazes me, should it really? after all this is the same board that left us without a CEO for a year when Flow left, stumbled through managers such that Kettlewell's budget was being taken up by paying for 2 extra management teams and of course forgetting to tell anyone that Kettlewell had a new deal too.

I think it was @Handsome_Devil who said that there is not going to be a status quo after this... but who would really want that? I just hope Caldwell/Lindsay can hold the club together until the society board can appoint new members to the club board and refill it's own. We might not have a large fan base but I think the current society board have shown that they are up to the task.

[Vietnam91]

22 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said:

If he keeps going like this we'll need a contract extension by the end of August...

Ambidextrous two

[CoF]

6 hours ago, Handsome_Devil said:

Another speculative punt...

I think there must be a decent chance that Erik feels he was sold a pup by McMahon/the executive and Dickie/Feely on how the WS/fans would react and has decided to sod it.

This is where I am. I kinda don't have much of an opinion of EB either way - I actually enjoyed reading his input when he was here, and felt he struck the right tone. His ideas and experience would be welcome, however we've all seen parts fall away under scrutiny. As a few have said, he's a businessman doing what they do - trying to get value for his investment.

I know plenty will see me as naive in that view but I kinda don't have the brain capacity or inclination to pick apart EB's role in all of this. Rather, I think this mess lies squarely with the executive board. Jumping back a few months, I think the society board were right (and in fact had a responsibility) to ask the question about becoming minority shareholder and I think this gave the club board an informal mandate to entertain EB's offer, so that's all fine. If they genuinely believed reducing the society to 46% and shifting the balance of the club board in EB's favour was in the interests of the club then I have absolutely no objection to that. Personally I wouldn't have voted in favour of it, but I have no problem with them seeing that as the way forward. However, the major massive and unforgivable red flag is then trying to sell that to us as continued fan ownership. They should have been making the case for shared ownership, with all the pros and cons of that, instead of trying convince us black was in fact white. Even after it was roundly called out, right up to the statement on 5th of July they're trying to frame it as something it's not - that statement's bullet point list "The Barmack's Proposal Would Mean:" is all the positives and no mention of associated risks and more importantly, the shift in board-room control. It's extremely disingenuous and completely contrary to the club boards second statement claiming they were keen to make sure everyone had all the facts. They only wanted to give the facts that supported their position. 

The executive board have acted like a dodgy used car salesman, thinking they know better, skipping over concerns and being utterly focussed on pushing a sale through. What a waste of everyones time. 

[thisGRAEME]

5 minutes ago, CoF said:

This is where I am. I kinda don't have much of an opinion of EB either way - I actually enjoyed reading his input when he was here, and felt he struck the right tone. His ideas and experience would be welcome, however we've all seen parts fall away under scrutiny. As a few have said, he's a businessman doing what they do - trying to get value for his investment.

I know plenty will see me as naive in that view but I kinda don't have the brain capacity or inclination to pick apart EB's role in all of this. Rather, I think this mess lies squarely with the executive board. Jumping back a few months, I think the society board were right (and in fact had a responsibility) to ask the question about becoming minority shareholder and I think this gave the club board an informal mandate to entertain EB's offer, so that's all fine. If they genuinely believed reducing the society to 46% and shifting the balance of the club board in EB's favour was in the interests of the club then I have absolutely no objection to that. Personally I wouldn't have voted in favour of it, but I have no problem with them seeing that as the way forward. However, the major massive and unforgivable red flag is then trying to sell that to us as continued fan ownership. They should have been making the case for shared ownership, with all the pros and cons of that, instead of trying convince us black was in fact white. Even after it was roundly called out, right up to the statement on 5th of July they're trying to frame it as something it's not - that statement's bullet point list "The Barmack's Proposal Would Mean:" is all the positives and no mention of associated risks and more importantly, the shift in board-room control. It's extremely disingenuous and completely contrary to the club boards second statement claiming they were keen to make sure everyone had all the facts. They only wanted to give the facts that supported their position. 

The executive board have acted like a dodgy used car salesman, thinking they know better, skipping over concerns and being utterly focussed on pushing a sale through. What a waste of everyones time. 

I'd agree with all of this. 

I don't necessarily think EB has nefarious ends in mind, but the sheer lack of detail and care over the whole thing sets alarm bells ringing. The implied rush around all of this had the counter-effect of actually leading people to investigate further rather than less. 

Given that even under my less than experienced gaze the proposal turned up numerous things that either don't add up or don't have relevance to us, I can't imagine what those who know what they're doing are able to turn up.

This all coinciding with a revamped and re-energised board has been a significant blessing in a number of ways, as they've really shown what they're capable of in such a short period of time, with a drive that it simply hasn't had previously. Not a criticism of what's gone before, but it's existed as it's needed to up to this point, but now requires something else.

[Mr Hahn]

2 hours ago, ropy said:

I would like to think that the Well Society will come out of this with more credibility, more members and higher subscriptions.

Perhaps the pain has been worth it. 

This might not be far off. I've been an on/off season ticket holder for 20 years but never been a member of the society. Will almost certainly sign up if this proposal is rejected as the current direction feels like something worth getting behind. 

Seems from Kettlewell's post match yesterday that we're not completely done with signings which is rather wild considering we've brought in how many? 9?

Most of us will get our first glimpses of some of the new boys this weekend but have been encouraged with what we've come up with so far, at least on paper. Would still very much love for us to bring in more of a Spittal replacement. Nicholson looked decent last year and glad he's signed but feel he might not quite be as consistent as Spittal and a slightly different kind of player. Obviously difficult to replace someone who was so integral as Spittal but if we could get one more in in that mould I'd feel much more comfortable going into this campaign.

If/when Bair goes, the signings we've made seem decent enough in that position but reckon if Miller was to go this summer we'd need to try and get someone else in for that position. Davor is decent and Halliday is alright but without both Miller and Spittal, feel we'd really be missing a bit of class in the middle.

[David1979]

4 hours ago, ropy said:

There is room on the WS board for a man with ideas that could be taken forward collaboratively.

Not sure I'd agree there. Under the Society's proposal (if the vote goes our way) they'll be working with a decent number of strategic investors from different places, and I wouldn't think there will be room for all of them on the board.

I'd also wager that some of those strategic investors will bring more to the table than Erik will, so they would be quite right in asking why they aren't getting a seat at the table if Mr Netflix is. Strategic investors all have to be treated equitably, with similar base terms that will differ slightly based on the offer and scope of what they are bringing to the table both financially and from a value-add extent.

For me, the Society board should always consist of people who at the very least knew who Motherwell was before they got involved. It's a board representing fan ownership, and should be populated by fans. Of course, those fans on the board should all have something to offer, but I think it's important we retain the "fan" aspect of "fan ownership" when it comes to who represents us on the Society board.

[Der Panzer]

I tried but this thread is drowning in shite I don’t understand or care about (although I wish you the best with any takeover talks!)

How is your squad shaping up? How is Zach getting on? Player I like but his languid style riles Scottish football fans!

[Doctor Manhattan]

18 minutes ago, Der Panzer said:

I tried but this thread is drowning in shite I don’t understand or care about (although I wish you the best with any takeover talks!)

How is your squad shaping up? How is Zach getting on? Player I like but his languid style riles Scottish football fans!

Had enough of the DAB's thread today, then? You Dees are mostly a good bunch of c***s, most of the time, but you all seem to have more feuds on the go at any one time than WWE 

As for Zach, check back with us in a few weeks. Or, if we've contrived to lose to Edinburgh City and/or Montrose, just steer well clear and draw your own conclusions.

[capt_oats]

55 minutes ago, David1979 said:

Not sure I'd agree there. Under the Society's proposal (if the vote goes our way) they'll be working with a decent number of strategic investors from different places, and I wouldn't think there will be room for all of them on the board.

I'd also wager that some of those strategic investors will bring more to the table than Erik will, so they would be quite right in asking why they aren't getting a seat at the table if Mr Netflix is. Strategic investors all have to be treated equitably, with similar base terms that will differ slightly based on the offer and scope of what they are bringing to the table both financially and from a value-add extent.

For me, the Society board should always consist of people who at the very least knew who Motherwell was before they got involved. It's a board representing fan ownership, and should be populated by fans. Of course, those fans on the board should all have something to offer, but I think it's important we retain the "fan" aspect of "fan ownership" when it comes to who represents us on the Society board.

I mean, I'm sure it's worse for the WS board but this feels like the most infuriating thing about the whole situation.

Reading between the lines it sounds like they're pretty far down the line with the potential to work with strategic investors who will add value but they can't move forward on it and can't talk about it because they've been having to put up with the absolutely deranged shitshow that Chairman Jim has created.

[Der Panzer]

7 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said:

Had enough of the DAB's thread today, then? You Dees are mostly a good bunch of c***s, most of the time, but you all seem to have more feuds on the go at any one time than WWE 

As for Zach, check back with us in a few weeks. Or, if we've contrived to lose to Edinburgh City and/or Montrose, just steer well clear and draw your own conclusions.

They are a mad bunch - told them I was a bit jealous of the random exotic signings - was a genuine comment as it’s class signing all these random c***s but they got all defensive. 

 

 

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

4 hours ago, capt_oats said:

Mental that we're going to sell him for £1m next.

But here we are...

Right foot, left foot. Doesn't matter.

[ropy]

2 hours ago, Der Panzer said:

I tried but this thread is drowning in shite I don’t understand or care about (although I wish you the best with any takeover talks!)

How is your squad shaping up? How is Zach getting on? Player I like but his languid style riles Scottish football fans!

Only seen Zach last night, he ran on to the ball, coolly took it round the keeper and stroked it nonchalantly past the post.  Hopefully there is more to come.

[Archie McSquackle]

Not seen much comment on last night's game on here - how did we look?

[Firparka]

On 05/07/2024 at 00:52, standupforthemotherwell said:

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

Agreed. The guy does have a track record in making digital entertainment, so fair play. But couldn't we just cut him a great deal something like: make a documentary about MFC, full access to club, players etc and Wildsheep get to keep 90% of the profits?  It publicizes the club and he gets to have fun making a documentary and makes money, assuming it is good enough. We don't need to sell him the club for him to make money from using the club as a way to make programs. Things in business don't have to be forever. We could offer naming rights to the stadium for 10 years on the stipulation that it says 'Scottish Lamb Stadium at Fir Park'. Or we could have Tim Horton's take over the catering inside the stadium for a decent payout. etc etc etc. 

[18May1991]

Do Tim Horton’s do a line in curry pies? If not, they can f**k off. 

[one m in Motherwell]

Tim Horton’s is shite.

[one m in Motherwell]

Although in saying that, paneer Timbits sounds do-able.

 

Make it happen Barmark.