All Activity

So fans can't have less than 50 per cent share of a club? If fan ownership was working Motherwell wouldn't be looking for outside investment.

PS. I agree with David, in that if this deal goes through (and I might yet vote for it) and the Society no longer has majority shareholding, I will no longer feel the need to continue my subscription. In my opinion, if you give away majority shareholding the purpose of the Society no longer exists and you may as well wind it up. Not sure if the Board or investors hace considered that.......

This debate really is just going round in circles. I guess thats what happens when we have no game to discuss and a vacuum of information. FWIW, although my preference is to remain majority fan owned and I am sceptical about this investor for now, I'm more than happy to wait and see the detail before making a final decision. There are one or two things worth repeating though. Although Ive been a member of the Well Society since its inception, there have been many things around it I have not been satisfied by. It has always seemed to me that the Executive Board have tried to keep the Society at arms length and only really consulted it when it needed to. Happy to have the safety net it provided, but really viewed it as an inconvenience. Now that might not be entirely fair, but thats how it has felt, to me at least. I sense there has been a change since the last WS Board elections and that some power and control has been wrestled back, and Im keen to see what direction that takes now that there might finally be a chance to make the fan ownership model mean something more tangible. Obviously the timing of this bid moves the timeframe forward for the Society and they will need to act quickly to get their ideas across and show that they can work. Re the bid, I dont know where the figures came from or whether they are correct, but for argument sake, a bid of £1.5m over a specified period isnt the kind of offer thats going to get me excited, and its certainly not the kind of figure that should see us selling controlling interest of the club for. Our club is worth considerably more than £3m regardless of how shit or desperate anyone thinks we are at the monent. Its not a figure we can turn our noses up at though, and if there was a way of getting that kind of investment into the club whilst keeping majority shareholding and the promise that we will still keep a majority share of player trading, then it might be worth looking at. At the end of the day, we need a deal which leaves us with more money coming into the club, not less. So whilst £1.5m now seems appealing, if the amount we bring in for player trading goes down, there doesnt seem much point. Its up to Mr Barmack to demonstrate he has the business skills and knowledge to grow the business and allow him to do that whilst making a profit on his own investment. In the meantime, I dont think a figure of £1.5m over 3 or even 5 years is revenue that is necessarily outwith the reach of the Society. But they dont have a lot of time to show it can be done and would be a viable alternative.

We'll find out details in due course, so need to get our knickers in a twist just yet. With regard to your point, we should all remember that, as things stand, Society reps on the board outnumber other directors by 2:1. However thats a good question. The 2 Society members on the Board, Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely are effectively wearing 2 hats. By default, the Society wasn't cut out.

It sounds very like yourself, and some others on here, have taken the stance that any outside investor should be hunted, even before any discussions as to their intent, because their intent will inevitably be bad. You might well be right, but it can't be that simple. The Well Society is a large group of individuals, so not everyone will share that view, obviously. And the glaring questions remain - whre will the Society drum up substantial no strings attached investment, and why wait till now to start doing something about it?

The point I'm making is that the Society, at the very least, should have been given the chance to raise that investment whatever form it may take, without being undermined by those running the Club.

If it's left to the Well Society to find additional investment, where would that come from, given the idea any investor is not going to want full control is laughable, in your opinion? Or do you want them to find thousands of new members willing to donate money on a regular basis?

Yeah, which makes the decision to effectively pit the Society's proposal against an outside investor's proposal even more bizarre.

The society are supposed to be putting together a funding proposal as far as I'm aware.

If those in charge of the Club are so in favour of retaining fan ownership why did they effectively cut the Society out by seeking direct outside investment that would likely require the Society to relinquish majority control? The suggestion that any investor is not going to want full control is laughable. Why have the Society vote othereise? Speculation or not do people really need to have it spelt out to see what's in the pipeline? IMO the Chief Exec and Chairman should have shown the Society as majority shareholder more respect and at least challenged those involved to attract additional investment and up funds. The freshening up of the Society board gives me a lot of confidence that they are more than capable of achieving something very positive. The timing of the whole thing is awful and has almost set the Society up to fail. I think it is lost on a awful lot of people just how significant majority fan ownership is and how it was a once in lifetime of the Club occurrence. Giving that up for anything short of a truly spectacular level of investment is crazy.

That was my understanding too. All kinds of arguments and complaints can be made about the Society's lack of communication or lack of say in big decisions over the years, and folk can claim that certain people are set on engineering a certain outcome, but if the final decision has to be taken according to the result of a membrship vote, legally, then there's no getting away from that. That some folk won't like that decision is inevitable, whichever way it goes.

I think no is the answer to that

Can someone buy majority control without a vote from WS members?

The vote will surely be legally binding. But yeah - I've been paying into the society for 6 years and I know very little about them - that's not their fault but all I've ever had is a weekly newsletter and that only started a couple of years ago.

As the majority shareholders the WS members having the final say on any major decision taken by the club over the years should have been normal practice. But from what the members have said including yourself the consultation / communication etc has been zero, so as I said is there any confidence that this approach will change as it needs to?

Because it was made clear by the well society that members would have the final say as to whether the society keep majority control or not.

Maybe the well society have to take a share of responsibility for that as well.

A choice between two beauties for me Spittal's long range effort v Ross County and Blaneys volley v Dundee.

The WS members opinions from what's been said so far don't seem to have been canvassed or taken into account by any communication or votes etc for any decision taken by the club re finances, infrastructure improvement etc since the WS was formed, what makes you think that approach will change now?

If investment is dependent upon Barmack securing a majority share holding then that will require to be confirmed when details of any offer is made public. So why waste time and money hiding that stipulation from the outset. I think any such demand would likely be a deal breaker as far as Society members are concerned. And without Society members approval no bid can succeed. There is no way round that. Steelboy’s Conspiracy theories aside. But nothing Barmack has said so far suggests that he is seeking a majority holding. All such talk has come from others, who do have the Club’s interests at heart but also have a passionate wish to retain fan control. Fair enough. But there is no evidence to support their view other than ‘investors are always looking for a financial return’ and ‘it is always the case that’. If there is any factual evidence that Barmack wants overall control, please share it so we can all be ‘in the know’. Given the challenge and obstacles that securing ownership of a fan owned football club present, why on earth would any experienced businessman go down that route as opposed to seeking control over the likes of Ross County or St Johnstone, whose owners are reportedly looking to step back? It makes no sense. Perhaps we should just take his comments at face value until we know otherwise.

Yeah, and that's all well & good. And you're entitled to that opinion, but the truth is that the majority of people do have televisions, and have had Netflix at some point in their lives. So it will have an effect. It adds credibility in some ways, doesn't it? That's why the media have mentioned it a few times. It's only natural that people hear about an investor and want to know what he's done. The fact he's not been with Netflix for quite some time doesn't really matter. And I wouldn't expect him to say anything of real substance about the investment publicly, not if he's a savvy operator. Only an absolute fool would come in and say "yeah, I won't be investing unless I get total control." And he doesn't strike me as a fool. The reason people like McCafferty are saying it is because as journalists they'll know how this kind of thing usually works. As I've said a few times, if he comes in, puts in a fair chunk of cash and does so without wanting to have majority ownership and thus final say over what happens to the money he invests then I'll be pleasantly surprised. He'll be a unicorn of sorts in the investment world. Because investors only really come in for a few reasons. The first is a financial return. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's the reasoning behind this venture. There's typically not a lot of ROI in Scottish football. The other is because it's a useful asset to have as part of a portfolio of companies, which is where the control factor comes in. It's not quite as useful if the final say on important matters rests with a fan group. Such a framework is usually seen as a roadblock more than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually find out that the Society retaining majority ownership is a deal-breaker. Again, we'll see how it plays out. It should be interesting. All I know is, if someone is wealthy enough to invest in the club and we hand them majority control, they won't need my regular monthly subs. I pay that amount because we're a fan-owned club and the fans are majority owners. As @steelboy has said, I fully expect that we'll be told that having a 30% holding or whatever alongside his investment is the best of both worlds. And it might very well be. It could all work out fantastically. I guess it depends on if we want to take the risk that it might not.

100% this.

This all day long. We need to ditch the weird formation and get our best players playing in their best positions. Vale is great with his back to goal and holding the ball up and playing others in. Bair is better running in behind. Davor runs around and breaks shit up. Miller and Spittal are both best at controlling the tempo and picking a pass. Gent is great at beating his man and driving crosses across the 6 yard box. Just do that. And if the defence could maybe not chuck any in our own net that would be grand!

Are cup goals not included? Not that he needs any more entries, but Spittal's free kick v Alloa has to be a contender. Of those in the compilation, Slattery's is the best team goal. Individually its between Spittals screamer v Ross County and The Bairs dink.

Bair against Livi, because not only was that a great goal but it really boosted his confidence for the remainder of the season. I also really enjoyed Slattery's against Hearts because it was a nice move and it was against Hearts.