Jump to content

Motherwell FC - A Thread For All Seasons


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

Colin Park is asking a lot of questions about transformational investment and if the WS are looking at that. Also what any potential investment would be valued at to be defined as "transformational".

Was he asking about 'transformational investment' in a having a dig at the WS way as that's the way it seems? I appreciate the meaning doesn't always come across as intended in a post so looking for confirmation?

If so, it would seem a very strange take for someone seeking election to the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit. I completely forgot this was happening until it had started. But that was my issue.

Good to hear it went well enough.

Was Feeley's position as chair mentioned?


 

2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

Question on how a Society Exec Board rep could vote against the wishes of the WS board.

Sean replying currently; says that during the WS' governance workstream, it's been discovered that there's no formal shareholder agreement between the WS and the Club. That's being worked on now and there are nuances around roles of Directors and how they can be held accountable to the Membership of the WS.

Tom F saying that he is one of the guys who found himself in that situation.  When it first cropped up, it went to the Executive Board and they made the decision to go forward with it and investigate it, before it went to the WS board. It was not possible to ignore the opportunity to look at it and understand if it was a quality one or not. Bottom line is when it went to the WS Board, the "WS Guys" (not sure I like that phrasing... sound like he sees himself as separate to the rest of the WS Board) didn't see it that way. He accepts it may not have been the best opportunity we could have had but it was the best one at the time. He felt the failsafe in the deal would have been OK and to his mind it was "not a great problem". He was quite happy to give Erik Barmack the chance in that 2-year window to show what he could have done and we could have walked away from it...

Of course, he made no acknowledgement of the cost of that to the Society. Very much felt like a "Acht, we'd have dealt with that at the time" kind of response/attitude.

Feeley seems to have contradicted a lot of what he said on the WS night a good few weeks ago. 

1 hour ago, ML4 said:

All this "transformational" chat. There are people in the room who think there's a queue of wealthy investors looking to chuck money at the club for no return. It's fantasy.

The future of the club is making more money, to have more money to spend and invest. It's that simple. Strategic investment can help achieve that for sure.

 

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

 

  • Speedie is really good,
  • Feely is a weird guy and @StAndrew7's point above about him talking about the "WS guys" is kind of the crux of it - it feels like there's a palpable disconnect between him and...everything but he's still there
  • The folk pushing the 'transformational' chat seem completely out of step with what the Society are trying to do and also have entirely unrealistic expectations of how quickly 'investment' can be sourced.

 

56 minutes ago, camer0n_mcd said:

People like the bold Colin Park who seem to believe that some multi-billionaire is going to take a look at us and chuck silly money at us for a laugh are detached from reality and shouldn't be taken seriously, these people should be confined to Well Fans III (and the other Facebook groups).

 

But again it's someone who quite clearly doesn't believe in fan ownership running to be on the board of the Well Society.*sigh*. 


I've always felt there were a lot of fantasists in there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

Question on how a Society Exec Board rep could vote against the wishes of the WS board.

Sean replying currently; says that during the WS' governance workstream, it's been discovered that there's no formal shareholder agreement between the WS and the Club. That's being worked on now and there are nuances around roles of Directors and how they can be held accountable to the Membership of the WS.

Let's hope so. The fact of the matter is that Douglas and Tom serve on the executive board as representatives of the Society board, to the best of my knowledge, and as such, it is their responsibility to convey the decisions of the Society board to the executive board and vote accordingly.

The response that essentially amounted to "well, the executive board reviewed it first and decided to proceed with a vote before consulting the majority shareholder" should not be acceptable.

If there is a breakdown in formal agreements allowing the Society board to discuss the matter and vote amongst themselves before the executive board casts their vote, it needs to be addressed promptly.

Both Tom and Douglas should have voted in accordance with the wider views of the Society board. They are not, to the best of my knowledge, on the executive board on their own merit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

Feeley seems to have contradicted a lot of what he said on the WS night a good few weeks ago. 

He was very enthusiastic about realising Lennon's full monetary potential. No talk of injuries tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Archie McSquackle said:

Was he asking about 'transformational investment' in a having a dig at the WS way as that's the way it seems? I appreciate the meaning doesn't always come across as intended in a post so looking for confirmation?

If so, it would seem a very strange take for someone seeking election to the board.

I wasn't in the room, so can't provide much context outside of what I heard on the Zoom. Not sure if anyone else who was there can chip in? I believe he (and all the other candidates) were chatting to folk at the beginning, no doubt canvassing for the election.

He was one of two candidates for the board who mentioned either transformational or philanthropic investment during their questions or statements made at points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it certainly seemed like there were a couple of digs in there about 'transformational investment' but Seans sustainable explanation blew them out the water I believe. I made the same point near the end more to stop a certain person getting hold of the microphone again when I saw their hand going up. Also to reiterate it's about how we spend the money we have that determines our success/failure and counter the delusion of certain folk about possible investments transforming our fortunes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My internet connection in Turkey gave out half way through it which wasn’t great - so didn’t get a chance to contribute annoyingly, some really interesting points made - both positively and unrealistically! 

Back to business though - seems like we’ll be announcing the return of Tony Watt before the new WS board members! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to all who joined the AGM last night either in person or online. It’s really positive to see more people than ever engaging and long may it continue. 

In line with our 90 day plan, later this month we will hold a number of face-to-face and online discussion sessions with members as we continue to review and refine the plan - ‘Our Club Our Future’

The sessions will take place at the following times at the following locations. There’s a form for signing up in the newsletter which was distributed on Friday. 

Thursday 22nd August - 7pm - Fir Park

Saturday 24th August - 12 noon - Virtual

Tuesday 27th August - 7pm - Fir Park

Sunday 1st September - 8pm - Virtual

If anyone has any questions about the AGM, these sessions or any other Society business I’m more than happy to answer for the next 7 days then it may be the responsibility of others to pick that up after the election concludes 😀

Edited by DerekWatson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fatcalf said:

To me it certainly seemed like there were a couple of digs in there about 'transformational investment' but Seans sustainable explanation blew them out the water I believe. I made the same point near the end more to stop a certain person getting hold of the microphone again when I saw their hand going up. Also to reiterate it's about how we spend the money we have that determines our success/failure and counter the delusion of certain folk about possible investments transforming our fortunes

100%

Despite previous assurances that the Barmack investment saga was behind us and it was time to move on, there was one individual in particular who was eager to revive that very discussion as soon as they got their hands on a microphone. I wondered how long it would take for Barmack's name to crop up, and it wasn't long at all.

This notion of "transformational investment" is absolute rubbish. It always has been.

I actually don't even think certain people understand what the term 'investment' means. Broadly speaking, investment is the allocation of resources, typically money, into assets or ventures with the expectation of generating income or profit over time.

"Investment" isn't convincing an entity or individual to give you money to spend on a football team with little chance of a return.

No one, unless there's a wealthy Motherwell fan out there willing to essentially give us money due to their emotional ties to the club, is going to provide "transformational investment" to Motherwell.

Are there avenues for investment? Absolutely, as detailed in the plan provided by the Society. But the investment being discussed is more about ensuring Motherwell as a club is sustainable, spending its resources wisely, and helping to bridge any financial gap that we might encounter in less successful seasons.

The club has to be self-sufficient. The day we find ourselves relying entirely on revenue from an individual or entity is the day we put the club's future in jeopardy.

Erik Barmack's offer certainly wasn't "transformational" in any sense of the word, and neither will any investment we see forthcoming over the coming months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

I'll take your maw out for dinner if you like.

I'd usually take you up on that swap. I think I'll settle for ma dinner on this occasion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...