dennyc
-
Posts
1,003 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dennyc
-
-
1 hour ago, steelboy said:
I explained that the deal looks like it is to get majority control essentially for free. It's the equivalent of buying a £20 quid note for a fiver.
That's why us.
How does he achieve that if the Society members say no to giving up their majority holding? Are you saying that McMahon has the power to hand the club over irrespective of what the members say.
-
59 minutes ago, steelboy said:
There have already been 45 or so UK clubs bought by Americans. There aren't many left to buy and we attractive because (1) we run at a profit (2) have no debt other than to the Well Society who will never call it in (3) McMahon has obviously told them that the Well Society members are stupid enough to effectively hand the club for free.
From what I have heard they intend to make a documentary series as part of an expansion of their Hollywood business.
Ah, so with 45 Clubs UK wide already purchased, we are all that is left? That is a really credible basis for such an astute businessman to become involved. What about worldwide? Much as I love Scotland there must be other countries that boast non fan owned Clubs available for purchase. You still have not told me why us, rather than them.
How much profit did we make in the most recent set of Accounts? Or the previous set?
As for McMahon, your comments are bordering on fixation. But at least they tie in to your conspiracy theory.
' From what you have heard'? Heard from who?
I don't know whether Barmack is seeking majority control. Neither do you. Unless you do have that hard evidence I asked for. If he does, it will become evident soon. Then the Society Members have a decision to make. As is their legal right.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Spiderpig said:
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?
I think this is a valid comment regarding the way the Society has operated in the past. Little consultation and even less communication.
But this is different and has a legal implication. The Society owns a majority share holding so by law they must surely have a say if the Club is to be sold. So whilst it may be that some Society Board Members would prefer to continue to make major decisions without referral to the Members, in this situation I don't think they can. And they have openly said the Members will have the final say. Again, that is totally different from previous decision making. New Board members have also given that assurance.
15 minutes ago, steelboy said:St Johnstone have already been sold in what looks to be a deal to carve up their valuable land between an American and the Browns.
Ross County are a village team and are only financially viable because they are a subsidiary of MacGregor's larger business.
As you are well aware these were only examples on non fan owned Clubs. You have avoided the real question. Why would anybody take on the challenges of buying a fan owned Club when other simpler, less challenging options are available? Clubs worldwide that could be bought without needing any fan buy in.
-
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. -
Barmack said quite clearly that he did not want to disempower the Society. In fact he was all for supporting it and helping it grow, working in a partnership. Without providing any evidence, the Scotsman journalist is essentially calling him a liar. The whole tone of the article could almost convince me it was written by Steelboy, or at the very least he had input. Perhaps we now know his ‘in the know’ source.
At the end of the day Members will decide whether or not to accept any investment offer. So the Society is in a position of strength. If Barmack suddenly declares he wants majority control, then that vote will likely go against him. And what can he do if the Society does reject his offer?
Let’s wait until we see the full terms of any offer. Then the fans will decide. Steelboy and McCafferty are trying to stir up unrest without any real evidence to support their allegations. Throw enough shit and some will stick appears to be the plan. If there is any basis in their fears then all will become clear in due course.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, steelboy said:
They will just say it's still 'empowered' with 30% or whatever.
I think that response reveals more about you than it does about Barmack.
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, steelboy said:
He also didn't say no to being the majority shareholder.
Obviously any new owner would want to keep the Society involved. It would be very expensive to get rid of it.
The fans being the majority shareholder has to be the red line.
“Our perspective is we never want to make an investment that disempowers the Well Society and the connection the fan-owned group has with the club. There's a bunch of different ways to construct deals that can accomplish the objectives of a fan ownership model, alongside outside investors. “
What do you think he meant with that response? How does taking a majority holding tie in with not wishing to disempower the WS?
-
Decent Interview with valid questions asked and addressed. And he is now on record as not wishing to oust the Society. Further details to come but encouraging.
-
2 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:
Did Les get his money back? From memory there was an initiative where he matched fans cash with his up to the £1m he had put in initially. Was a bit of a gimmick to encourage fan to join the society.
Les H did encourage Society sign ups by saying he would reduce the sum owed to him by the equivalent of any new funds collected by the Society. £1 for £1. What we were not told at the time was that Society funds would be used to repay the remaining balance of his debt at an agreed date. Effectively, for a period of time, all monthly payments to the Society were passed to him.
My view is that fans who hand over hard earned cash are entitled to know what those funds will be used for. Not to the Nth degree by all means. To support the Club is one one thing and I'm all for that, but to support other causes (however worthy) is another thing. If I want to contribute to the Community Trust or any other charity I will do that separately. I'm certainly not questioning the merit, good work or value of the Trust.
My biggest concern is that funds were to be loaned to the Club and not just donated. The Society would act as Bankers. Any Loans to the Club were to be shown as such on MFC/Society Accounts with the intention that at 'some time in future convenient to MFC' they would be repaid from income. This was essentially an exercise to ensure that if MFC failed, then legal priority would be given to repaying the Society ahead of Ordinary Shareholders and Creditors. Common sense. If that agreement had been adhered to, then the value of the Society would currently be well in excess of £2m. And available for a rebuild if need be.
If the way the the Society is to support the Club has changed/is to change then fair enough. But at the very least Members should be aware of what the arrangement is. Through discussions I believe attempts are being made to return to the original model, driven by recent appointees. But if I am to continue to contribute then I need to be convinced that we are once more operating as originally agreed, particularly as those who oversaw the 'donations' still have influence.
-
2
-
-
Of course the Society exists to fund the Club in times of need. But, just like a Bank overdraft, those funds were originally intended to be repaid to the Society from the likes of transfer income or end of season performance payments. In that way Society funds would continue to escalate and be protected in a worst case scenario. To rebuild a new Club if need be. That is how the Society was sold to fans. Without Members knowledge that model was changed. First of all to repay Les Hutchison and subsequently funds were handed to the Club with no intention of those monies being repaid. So the current balance is way below where it should be given the total funds received from fans over the time the Society has existed. Recent appointees to the Society Board are hoping to see the original model followed in future and so see balances increase.
Funds were also intended to be provided purely for the core business of the football Club. Although the Community Trust is a fantastic initiative I would question whether the Society should be utilising fans’ donations for that or any initiative which is not essential to Motherwell FC.-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:
Agree about the importnace of youth but selling our talent on has been a key part of our financial plan ever since I began supporting the club and that wasn't yesterday. It won't change, but I wish it would. We do, however, have to maximise our income and finances from other sources. We should only sell if the price is right for us.
Selling talent is a key part of every Club, and always will be. I don’t think anyone believes otherwise. . But as u say other income streams must also be maximised. My concern is that for a while the sale of players appears to have been identified by the current Board as the only way to operate in the black, or close to it. With Society monies made available for projects the Club cannot fund. The Society is a good thing and hopefully will continue to grow but I wonder, if it had not existed, would McMahon etc been forced to come up with other ways to balance the books.
By continually selling off our best players and their youth replacements, the quality on the pitch reduces…..as is evident on a year by year comparison…and so performance income reduces and the Club becomes less attractive to sponsors, new fans, tv etc. We then become even more dependent upon player sales and if they don’t happen we continue our quality decline. How long can that downward spiral continue?
It’s fair to say that other Clubs are experiencing similar problems but they have an advantage over us in that they do have outside sources of income. Some that are even prepared to cover sizeable losses. Somebody helpfully provided a list earlier in this thread. I guess it might all come down to what level we wish to see Motherwell compete at. I hope we can find a balance that supports both outside investment and the Society as major shareholder. If not, I worry about where we are heading.
-
17 minutes ago, santheman said:
I didn't say it was a fluke but without it we would be in a far worse position. There's no guarantee that we're going to produce a Turnbull every other season.
The fact that we have money in the bank and the WS and yet Kettlewell had to drastically cut the playing budget tells a story.
Exactly this.
And also, despite income from youth players moving elsewhere, we still incurred losses some years. I repeat, it is a highly risky strategy. Relying on a Turnbull like sale every other year as a minimum. We would survive possibly were those sales not to happen, but at what level?
-
1 minute ago, steelboy said:
Bringing players through is part of our business model. We have Lennon Miller now, there will be more.
Focusing on 12 month cycles rather than the medium term would be cutting our own throat. A lot of annual losses over the years have just been investing the profits from the previous year.
I'm not saying investing in youth should not be part of our strategy. But relying on sufficient player sales from that source is too risky. It is too tempting for young players to walk away when their contracts expire, or before they reach full contract age. Those sales should be a bonus and not a "get out of jail" card.
Amongst other things, external investment on the correct terms could help us develop a stronger youth programme. That way we have the best of both worlds. So that is a bit more than a 12 month cycle.
Bottom line is that we cannot continue as is. It does not work and leaves us exposed.
-
1 hour ago, steelboy said:
That's not true though. These are the figures during the period of fan ownership so far. When you compare it to other clubs during the same period we have done exceptionally well. According to Derek Weir at the AGM we are likely to break even this season which is impressive considering the dead weight in the playing squad.
16/17: (£104,000)
17/18: £1,720,000
18/19: (£436,000)
19/20: £346,590
20/21: £3,575,615
21/22: (£1,082,000)
22/23: (£1,605,000)Net profit: £2,415,205
Ok. so not a complete run of losses. Just the four loss making seasons out of seven and that includes the most recent two years which represent the biggest losses. A trend which should cause concern, and would in most Businesses.
So my question about sustainability is still valid. How many £3m players can we unearth and profit on given current transfer rules? Strip that Turnbull fee out and the seven year Net Profit more than disappears. And in that timeframe we have also ingathered funds from a fair number of Development/Agreed Fees which failed to offset operating losses. The strategy of relying on such sales to survive is just asking for trouble.
-
3 hours ago, steelboy said:
I don't see how you could possibly have more say as a small shareholder than as a Society member?
Everyone is equal in the Society, it gives us a legal structure to pool our resources, no one can take money out of it and it could easily outlive most of us.
There is definitely strength in numbers and members donations being locked in is also a positive.
But the Club and others have been given Society funds on a permanent..not loan....basis. Contrary to what we were promised would happen when the Society was established. So Society funds are lower than they should be given total donations collected. A figure in excess of £1.25m is gone forever. The people who allowed that to happen are still on the Society Board. More recent appointees are looking to have better control over Society assets but it remains to be seen whether they will succeed. I genuinely wish them well and early signs are promising.
Given how Society funds have been managed up to now, the limited scope for increasing monthly income given our fan numbers and the fact the Club has failed to at least break even for a number of years .........for how long do you think the Society can continue to sustain the Club before funds run out? Having to demonstrate the ability to financially cover an 18 month period to appease the football authorities also comes into play.
I believe external investment is essential to ensure the future of our Club at the present level. Respect them or not, it is clear the current Club Board shares that view. And on that basis I think they are acting in the Club's best interest. But we need to find the correct balance, which retains the Society as the major shareholder, does not make us overly reliant on the goodwill of any outside investor and protects Club assets. Not an easy task.
Until we are presented with the facts of any investment offer we need to keep an open mind. It would also help if meantime the Society would spell out exactly how our funds will be utilised in future. Are we returning to the original model and so longer being utilised as a piggy bank to be raided for whatever purposes certain people see fit.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, steelboy said:
The video he paid for that says we are looking for American investment.
Why is it such a big deal for you that he supposedly paid for the video? I can imagine your comments had he used Club funds bearing in mind our financial situation? Do you think we don't need external investment? I suppose it all adds to your conspiracy theory though. If you have concrete evidence that McMahon is not acting in what he believes to be the best interest of Motherwell FC, then share it.
And I'm pretty sure the request for investment was not limited to America.
Did you have the same issues when a former Director personally funded a players wage deal?
-
3 hours ago, steelboy said:
McGinn's form is in decline and although SOD has been better recently he's still got too many errors in him and is rotten on the ball.
I would guess the two of them will be on decent money as well. As we have seen with Gent and Spencer there are younger and better players available.
When he came on at Dundee SOD did everything that Devine didn't. Suddenly the midfield had an option moving forward out wide other than Gent and Dundee were stretched all across the park. As a result Spittal started to contribute more, Bair had space to run into and Gent was not double marked. And Kettlewell deserves credit for making that change, despite the concern about SOD carrying an injury. His performances throughout the season have more than earned SOD another year.
-
10
-
-
Disgraceful. Clearly the pitch is currently unplayable. But hey, why don't you guys buy tickets and set off anyway and we will tell you whether the game is on or off as you pass Perth. Fans are the lifeblood of the sport and get treated like crap. All because the powers that be did not want to be accused of bias by insisting Rangers and Dundee play midweek before an OF game.
But then it is the Clubs that allow the cretins on the SPL Board to run the show. Nothing changes.
-
24 minutes ago, steelboy said:
There's no way we should be agreeing to play on astro.
It will not matter whether we agree or not. The game will be played wherever and whenever the authorities decide it will be played. Same as kick off times for tv, cup ties etc. Fan convenience and player welfare are not considerations sadly.
-
2 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:
In other words, “We are not going to postpone the game till you are all half way here”.
And we have sold you as many tickets as possible, for which no refund will be available. Surely this is a time when PATG is the solution.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:
I think that will be right, now that you explain it.
Back to the original point made by several of us. Given that the Society "reps" on the Executive Board outnumber other Directors ie Jim McMahon, I would hope that the Society is taking an active part in the negotiations with external partners irrespective of how it is is dressed up. If not, it would appear that Jim McMahon is ploughing a lone furrow. Of course, the Society should be working up its own proposal in parallel. I hope in Mr MCGarry's words, that the tail isn't wagging our dog.
I think the tail has been wagging the dog ever since Hutchison insisted the established model be altered. Only the recent additions to the Society Board gave me hope that order might be restored. And I believe Jay and his colleagues are working to that end. But, sadly, nothing I have read recently suggests to me that anything meaningful has changed.
-
I think I'll patiently wait until details of the proposed investment are officially released rather than listen to conspiracy fantasists with an axe to grind. Then I'll make up my own mind as to whether any proposal gets my support.
It was only a matter of days ago we were told that no CEO discussions had taken place since December and that no effort was being made to fill the position. All part of the Board's devious masterplan. And apparently that was also from a solid ' In the know' source. In truth it was just more made up nonsense.
But I guess that if people shout loud enough then then their fiction will be taken by a few as gospel. After all, that's how ludicrous conspiracy theories gain traction. Quite revealing that a certain Donald Trump was mentioned. He is not really interested in facts or evidence either.
-
-
New Investment Options
in Club Chat
Posted
Do you know that for a fact? Not saying it is not his plan, but why are you so sure? Other than 'that is how it usually works'