StAndrew7

It's a natural progression to point to them, given that they're the ones who we're negotiating exclusively with right now. It was stated by the Chairman at the AGM that any of the potential investors discussed (including the "Americans" in this instance) would be making their investment in new shares i.e. diluting the value of existing shareholders' shares in the club to whatever level is agreed. As far as I'm aware it's the cleanest way for any investment to take place, as it removes the need for buying/selling of existing shares.

Nope, direct from the AGM in this instance.

This is a quote from me and others, based on my report back on what was said the AGM. Jim McMahon said that any new investments will be made by the issuing of new shares not the purchase of existing ones. Now, that may well change based on the discussions but that's as good a source as we have right now. @steelboy is correct in what he's saying.

He did. He's here until the summer or 2026, most likely to be sold next January or the summer of 2025 I would imagine.

The Companies House thing happens every year I think, if you look back at previous accounting periods. There's nothing out of the ordinary there. I suspect this year it will also be dependent on the changes to the board structure agreed at the AGM. And agreed, the WS is essentially a piggy bank right now. Far removed from what it was initially set up to be. I believe that shift was part of the deal with Les; although as I'm not a member I can't confirm if that was ever voted on?

This is it exactly for me. The club has always (since administration etc. anyway) operated under a model where we need to sell a player every other year to keep the books balanced, or sell a Turnbull every three or so. The WS' funds essentially became a way for the club to keep things balanced in leaner times after Les came in, and that's absolutely worked and kept the club afloat. I would argue that's not necessarily true fan ownership, which is why I'm intrigued to see what the new WS board have to offer in terms of growing that to something even more meaningful. However, there's also no reason that the work they're doing can't be done alongside an investor who wants to work with the WS to do that, using their own business experience and skills to supplement what is already there. My line in the sand for all of this has always been 51/49 ownership in favour of the fans. If it goes beyond that (even if it takes years, or is performance based etc.) it's a no from me. Also, there is far, far more to any potential takeover than can be acutely summarised on a forum like this. Like I'm enjoying the debate and discussion but we also need to know a significant amount of what we're reading here and in the press is speculation. e.g. The actual, financial valuation of the club and its assets (rather than the emotional one we as fans put on it) calculated by forensic accountants/finance specialists and then adding in any potential clauses the WS want around ensuring that if they lost majority ownership, there is first refusal on the investor's shares if/when they choose to go or sell up. This is all, of course, dependent on it getting to the stage of there being an actual offer for the club that the Exec Board deems worth considering. Exclusivity of negotiations doesn't guarantee that will happen. One (final, I promise) point; none of the potential investors we have attracted so far are offering to put "transformational" amounts of money into the club. So whatever happens in that regard, I believe the WS will have to continue in some capacity to support the club in leaner times. Like you said @joewarkfanclub we need to be very careful when coming to a decision. Personally, I think there is a model where the WS and any investor(s) could work together (whilst the WS/fans retains majority ownership under whatever structure is negotiated) to build the former and help the latter get a return on their investment, leaving the club in a stronger position than it was. There is nuance to that which will take time to work out, if it is indeed an option, but the devil, as always, will be in the detail.

The chat I've heard is he's happy to stay and has a deal essentially agreed but not until he knows we're staying in the Premiership.

From what I can remember, it was part of this interview Derek Weir gave. I don't have time to find the right section though.

And that's your prerogative, but don't criticise others because they chose to question what, in their eyes, is a poorly constructed article written by a Motherwell fan because it's written by a Motherwell fan.

No, but if someone has told them the details of the deal, they have. So he is potentially accepting information from a commercially sensitive negotiation which is under exclusivity and I would imagine non-disclosure agreements. And yes. It's telling us those things. Without anything to back up the first point, stating the obvious in the second and telling us something else we already knew. Pulitzer prize stuff, this.

Because that's not how journalism is supposed to work? That article is pure speculation with quotes from an interview he didn't conduct. He published nonsense about the accounts/Kilmarnock earlier in the year and his points were very quickly shot down by the Club/Weir in an interview in January. If anything I'm questioning his motives more because he's a Motherwell fan, rather than taking him at his word. Also, Barmack is an ex-VP of Netflix and has actually gone on the record about things, why not take him at his word? Edit: for the record, if it does turn out he's after majority ownership, he can get in the sea. But we haven't had that "confirmed" by any means.

There is literally nothing in that article that backs that up, other than the opening paragraph and it saying the WS voted it would consider it. I would hardly say that it's "confirmed" because of who his dad is/was. Because if that is the reason he's in the know, that's undermining the potential outcome of an ongoing commercial/financial negotiation and would be incredibly unprofessional from both of them. But y'know, it pushes an agenda.

I said this over on P&B as well; it absolutely comes across as him "saying the right things" at this early a stage of negotiations and engagement but he is saying the right things. Definitely interesting times ahead.

The link to the club website is in the first post?

Just because it's always been a feature doesn't mean it should be accepted or not challenged when there is evidence to the contrary.