All Activity

We don't need to sell our best player to survive. Not if we're budgeting accordingly, and we're budgeting for that 10th place finish at worst. Selling our best players should result in some financial leeway and a cushion of sorts, the way the Turnbull money did.

Thank you. You'd never think I did accounts to degree level... My head is just full of criminology just now.. Thanks again

I don't think the club is run badly but as I've said before. I'd like to see us be in the situation where we didn't need to sell our best players to survive and thats why I'm open to outside investment

It's not precarious if the club is run correctly. We budget for finishing 10th and a few cup games, and anything else above & beyond that goes into the "rainy day" fund. Be it player sales, extended cup runs, top six finishes, whatever. For example, we're sitting 8th at the moment, and let's say that finishing in 8th means getting £1.375 million instead of the £1.250 million the team finishing 10th gets. That's an extra hundred grand or so that we didn't account for, so it's a little bonus.

Simplest way I can see it - if I’m correct - is at the moment the society owns 71% of the current shares (for easy calculations let’s call it 100 shares total and the society owns 71 of those with private shareholders owning the other 29) so if they issued another 39 shares making the total shares 139 then the society’s 71 shares would then be approximately 51% of the club shares instead of 71% at the moment and the existing private shareholders shareholding’s would drop to 21%. The new investor would then be given the new 39 shares in return for their investment giving them approximately 28% ownership of the club. Edit: I hope my sums are correct but since I left school 43 years ago (and it’s a Friday night) please forgive me if there not and don’t be too harsh on my.

I wasn't at the AGM.. So excuse me if all of the AGM talk means very little to me. And I'm not thick.. But all of this is way over my head.. Probably because I'm just a fan who turns up on match day and donates to the well society Maybe someone could explain it in simple terms

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.

He was talking about the Americans in his post as in I presume the proposed investor. Surely that won't have been discussed at the AGM

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.

I've read that issuing new shares was discussed at the club AGM.

No. He doesn't. He's just repeating stuff from "sources".

Nope, he signed an extension till summer 2026

It’s extended to summer if 2026. That was done in Nov of last year. Tried To paste picture but file too large. You can google to confirm.

So you don't actually know

is lennon millers contract extension not up in summer 2025, if so he will go this summer.

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.

Can only repeat what everyone else has said. Vale up top with Bair. He is a striker so why is SK playing him deeper. Gent fires in low crosses all the time but never any takers. Or is it worth starting Moses in central role and give him say 55 mins?

Just seen this quote from Richard Foster on the BBC website talking about us missing out on the top six and thought the bit about Aberdeen could come back to bite him on the arse next week. "When you're having to rely on other teams to do you a favour, it's never great. Especially when we were having to rely on Aberdeen to win at home. It's never going to help us.“

No I thought it was you behind the goals

Is Harry Paton back in training? Thought I saw him in a Fb post.

Good post. Irrespective of how its been achieved, ie through development of the Academy, we have always been a selling club. Whatever investment model we adopt in future, that will never change. Thats not to say, of course, that we shouldn't maximise other income streams. Of course we should.

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?

I agree, if it's truly fan ownership and the Well Society has controlling interest. (Which is now ceased at Companies House, anyone else notice that?) Then we should appoint the board. Not 2/5 board members. The fan ownership simply isn't real. It's a funding mechanism for the club with no real say.

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.