Leaderboard

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Sometimes its best not to over complicate things! 😆😆😆

I dont know anything for a fact. Only the investor and the club know what the deal is (or should). But some of our fans seem to think that outside investment is some sort of no risk Nirvana where we never have to pay any money back and we can instantly spend more money on players. Given how negative many are being about fan ownership, I think its important that someone highlights the risks on the other side of the fence. I do want to re-iterate though, that I wont make my own mind up one way or the other until I see the detail of the deal.

This

Exactly its a precarious operating model. We need more regular definite funds not funds that are rely on the exception rather than the rule. The WS need to tell us how they will achieve that.

The finances are fine. We have made a good profit during a difficult period. To me it looks like the clique that have run the club in various guises for 20 years don't like the fact that the majority of the Well Society board are now supporters from the East Stand and decided they would rather privatise than see working class fans have a real say in how the club is run.

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!

He might not . But the club might. Personally my issue with fan ownership is that there's only 3000 members. Members that could cancel at any point.

Vale beside Bair please, not behind him. Not confident about this one as Aberdeen seem to know how to beat us this term, with us holding on for a draw after being 3 up last time out at Pittodrie. They may also have a new manager bounce, if there is such a thing.