steelboy Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 even if it's the same people it will no doubt legally be a different entity with holding companies registered all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 I think that if the Well Society is struggling to get funds now, it's going to struggle to get them in five years. It's a nice idea and one that I myself was a supporter of, but, that was two years ago and things have changed. The clubs finances are screwed and the WS has already not got enough in the bank to provide another loan. Not to mention the fact that it's considering a loan of £1m to buy the club. It was loans like this that forced Rangers and Hearts into admin. We don't have the fan base to recover like they did. I think it's come to the time where an external investor is required with or without the Well Society. When the future of the club is at stake, it's vital that the right choice is made. I hope WS can do it, and I want them to do it but I don't think the club will survive without a constant flow of money from someone at the top. But that's not to say that this consortium is good. I too have looked into the past Solano ventures and found inter Toronto. But the very league is only in its inaugural season as are all 10 (9 without IT) clubs in it. It had its licence revoked for failing to meet league standards with its stadium protocol. That is a staff job, not an owners job. I hope this is resolved before the Inverness game. We need stability right now. Conjecture. What do you base that on? As for similar analogy to Rangers & Hearts? Piffle. The loan is of the soft variety believed by some to be from within. Whilst the Society as it stands are not publishing details prior to any deal being struck and/or upcoming special general meeting - it has been mentioned members wouldn't be liable. Hearts survival came in the face of adversity, the Well Society has tried to raise monies outwith such a scenario - you honestly believe they couldn't raise required funds in future if the situation, god forbid, is bleak? Have a word with yourself. My fear, regardles whether I figure fan ownership will succeed or not, is the chance to rebuild from the bottom up with a fresh approach coaching wise may well be missed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 As sense in OTF's post. Best thing for fan ownership is impending doom, best of the rest for 3 seasons straight unfortunately isn't a motivator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 As much as we're in need of investment or some financial backing to give stability, the thought of being run as a foreign talent showcase gives me the fear. Having gone through administration I felt some sympathy for Dundee when they went into administration but less so the second time when there was a feeling they hadn't learned their lesson. Some other clubs have also been run in a way that fans of other clubs could see was only going to lead them to financial issues. I just hope we can learn from past mistakes and not be swayed by the lure of temporary cash that will just end up as our debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ML1 Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Well the fans never came up with the funds to save us the last time we were in the shit , selling the kind of assets that we simply don't have nowadays done that. Finishing best of the rest might not be motivation but having a read at the club's published accounts over that same period or listening to what the beancounters are saying should get at least some out of their slumber. Whether or not its total fantasy i still cant believe im reading some folk saying that they like the sounds of this Nobby Solano experiment. Hell mend us if we do get Death by Peruvian as we had our chance to make sure MFC and its continued existence were the owners prime concerns. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaretAndBamber Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 I just hope we can learn from past mistakes and not be swayed by the lure of temporary cash that will just end up as our debt. Sadly, we have no say in this. John Boyle ultimately decides who gets his shares, whether he 'donates' them to the fan ownership model or 'sells' them to some other investor(s). In my opinion, the first option leaves a better legacy but both are risky from the point of view of the club and the fans. Better the devil you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizoxy Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Why anyone would think the Solano thing is a good idea escapes me. Look at what happened to Airdrie, Dundee and Hearts. When owners like this get what they need, or can no longer make money, they aren't going to do what John Boyle did and write off part of what is owed to them, they will screw the club over. The reason fan ownership appeals to me is that the fans are the only people who truly care about the club. Not the players, employees, or owners, because they come and go and there are hundreds of other clubs out there. But if we lose our club, then that's it. I also believe that we deserve the club we pay for. If the current level of investment from our fans is the maximum we can bear (including gates, merch, and well society), then that is what we have to live with. I know what I'm prepared to pay and I don't expect 2nd place every year at that price. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Sadly, we have no say in this. John Boyle ultimately decides who gets his shares, whether he 'donates' them to the fan ownership model or 'sells' them to some other investor(s). In my opinion, the first option leaves a better legacy but both are risky from the point of view of the club and the fans. Better the devil you know? this still isn't totally clear. at well society meetings dempster and weir said that boyle had put his shares into a trust and that trustees control them. it has also been said that the point where boyle can receive money for the shares has passed. boyle's exact role in this situation and how he ended up with a security over the main stand is a mystery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 What has Derek Weir and the Board been primarily working on in the run-up to the November deadline? Seeking private investment or supporting the rise of the Well Society? I imagine their preference is somewhere in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn_Broomfield Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 What has Derek Weir and the Board been primarily working on in the run-up to the November deadline? Seeking private investment or supporting the rise of the Well Society? I imagine their preference is somewhere in the middle. The former I would imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 The statements from the well society make me a little uneasy. I work in marketing/advertising and can't understand the cloak and dagger approach to potential investors (us. The fans.) Please put the cards on the table and let us know what we're up against. worrying times indeed for our club when many of us cant get behind fan ownership and in fact are looking towards some crazy consortium as a positive. This is a call to the well society to stop the bullshit, let us know what's happening. You're doing the club no favours just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 If there are non-disclosure agreements in place (and there almost always is in these circumstances), nobody can say anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 If there are non-disclosure agreements in place (and there almost always is in these circumstances), nobody can say anything. I understand that completely but the statements have been bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I understand that completely but the statements have been bizarre. Aye, that's true. I would have thought someone from the Society with a bit of a business background could have crafted them a bit better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1991 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 If this consortium or any other group buy the club what happens to the society and money people have invested ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onthefringes Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 this still isn't totally clear. at well society meetings dempster and weir said that boyle had put his shares into a trust and that trustees control them. it has also been said that the point where boyle can receive money for the shares has passed. boyle's exact role in this situation and how he ended up with a security over the main stand is a mystery. Oh, it's clear alright... John Boyle gave messrs Weir, McMahon & Dempster (now just Weir & McMahon as she has since moved to pastures new) power of attorney to the group over his shares. However, a power of attorney can be revoked at any time. Essentially John Boyle will make the call on future ownership because legally he still owns the club. Let's hope he makes another decision that safeguards the future of our club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaretAndBamber Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Oh, it's clear alright... John Boyle gave messrs Weir, McMahon & Dempster (now just Weir & McMahon as she has since moved to pastures new) power of attorney to the group over his shares. However, a power of attorney can be revoked at any time. Essentially John Boyle will make the call on future ownership because legally he still owns the club. Let's hope he makes another decision that safeguards the future of our club. This (except he doesn't own the club, just a majority share). In terms of security over the stand, this is for the loan and nothing to do with the shareholding as far as I am aware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Wellfan 2k7 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Conjecture. What do you base that on? As for similar analogy to Rangers & Hearts? Piffle. The loan is of the soft variety believed by some to be from within. Whilst the Society as it stands are not publishing details prior to any deal being struck and/or upcoming special general meeting - it has been mentioned members wouldn't be liable. Hearts survival came in the face of adversity, the Well Society has tried to raise monies outwith such a scenario - you honestly believe they couldn't raise required funds in future if the situation, god forbid, is bleak? Have a word with yourself. My fear, regardles whether I figure fan ownership will succeed or not, is the chance to rebuild from the bottom up with a fresh approach coaching wise may well be missed. Okay, you're right it is conjecture. It's based upon our falling finances over the last 3 years, our inability to profit from players, our receding attendances etc. With regards to the WS, I will happily remove them from my post as I suppose not enough details have been shared. Any loan is risky- regardless of how soft it is. If it's to get us over the line in order to get the shares then fair enough. But repayment of £1m when over 3 years they've only raised £500k? Don't get me wrong, I don't want this to fail. I just don't see it. As for the raising funds in the face adversity statement- Hearts fans did wonders. They rallied together and I think we will too. But hearts had resources to get rid of, they had more than enough to set themselves on the right track. We have Fir Park and not much else. But even that was valued recently as a very small amount IIRC. I just think a club needs a leader, someone who will get them out of the rut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSoc Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 To answer some questions: Who makes the decision? It's not as simple as saying one person. As is said above, John Boyle still owns the shares and anyone can revoke a power of attorney. So it's fair to assume he needs to be satisfied with what's happening. I know a sale to an outside party would be better for him (he is owed £350K by the club) and he could probably have sold up before now. So that tells you something. Club directors also need to be convinced by proposals. In the WS case, you have JB, club directors, WS board members, and the sources of the finance, who all need to agree a deal. What happens to security over stadium? Once JB's loan is settled then that falls back into club's hands. I think it's pretty standard practice to use stadium as security for a loan, especially when you control the club, as he did at the time. If another group buys the shares what happens to the money raised by Well Society members? Well Society rules 93 and 94 deal with what happens if the Society is wound up and where the money goes (basically a community-based charity in Lanarkshire, probably designed to be the MFC Community Trust). These rules were set up by the club. But rule 94 can be changed and rules 88/89 explain what is needed to change it. You can view these rules on the WS website. So it's up to members to decide what happens to the money raised should the society cease to exist. Members also decide whether the society should be wound up. There was a share purchase but we have been promised that money (150k) back if the JB shares are sold to an outside group. So all of the membership fee cash will be available for the members to collectively decide what to do with. On the subject of the "bizarre/cloak and dagger" statements.... There are many reasons why they are not clearer. (1) Talks regarding the main source of our potential finance are bound by a confidentiality agreement. So there are legal reasons why the statements skirt around the surface. (2) Details and opinions are constantly changing. There would be seven statements a day if we were to constantly update in detail as the previous statement would be out of date within an hour. The proposed deal is not simple and that's why it is difficult to be clear when you're trying to give a brief update. (3) We don't want to jeopardise negotiations. Someone has said we're doing the club no favours by not being clear in the statements. But there has been no statement whatsoever from any other party - not the club, not directors, not John Boyle, not our potential backers. And I haven't seen a statement from any foreign consortium. The statements are an attempt to keep members informed without breaking any confidences from the people we are negotiating with. So they are vague and I'm sure they are frustrating to read, but rather that than be putting something out there that scuppers a deal. I feel uneasy about writing anything on here or anywhere else, for that reason. The email appeal for loans was a case in point - how far can you go in warning of the consequences of failure without actually saying what you know about the alternative for fear of upsetting people who make the decisions? The most recent statement came on the day of the report in the Daily Mail - it was designed to reassure members (or people who want the WS to succeed at any rate) that there was still a chance of a community solution. The choices seemed to be: say nothing and be criticised and leave people completely in the dark; or to say something that is slightly vague and be criticised; or to say too much and potentially scupper a deal. Might be over-cautious but there's a lot at stake. The unavoidable consequence of that is that there are misunderstandings and misconceptions, but I can categorically reiterate that no WS member would be personally liable for repaying any loans. There was a real chance of a major interest-free loan months ago but the WS couldn't offer any security, so it stalled, and then new information came to light that we needed more than 800k and that there was an alternative option for the club ownership. Hence the move to appeal for people to lend the club money. the whole deal is now hinged upon where the risk lies and how to satisfy all parties, and obviously there is little time to proceed. Hence the complications and hence the vague statements. Hopefully that goes some way to explaining a few things, although I know it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. It's all very frustrating when you know what's going on so can only imagine how frustrating it will be waiting for information. Thanks for everyone's patience. Hopefully there will be a new statement soon, and hopefully it's a lot clearer than the previous one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 It sounds to me as though this South American consortium carry-on may have more to it than a lot of us actually believe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 If it has any legs then someone (Boyle) must be considering it and to me that would go against everything he has said previously about leaving the club in safe hands, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 While interviewing McManus on the radio, Peter Martin indicated that ownership will be decided in the next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 While interviewing McManus on the radio, Peter Martin indicated that ownership will be decided in the next week. Don't expect any decision on a new manager before that's decided then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 If it has any legs then someone (Boyle) must be considering it and to me that would go against everything he has said previously about leaving the club in safe hands, Thats what Boyle promised he would do. I wonder what is going on with Boyle that he needs this sorted as quickly, deadlines are set and he is getting out no matter what. I know his shares have been up for offer for some considerable time but it is the first time there has been such a deadline. Also if the WS do get the soft loan/ funding etc then where does that leave funding going forward. If all the cash is tied up in buying the shares and keeping us afloat then we are basically treading water. I know we can once again cut out cloth accordingly but if we do anymore we will be a part time club. If we do turn part time (it has been hinted at in the past) I don't see us going any other way other than a quick exit of the Premiership and down the leagues. If John Boyle sells out to the 'other' bidder then I also have grave fears for the identity of the club. It may be lost forever if we become a feeder club for South american players. If you lose the soul of the club then what is the point of continuing to support it. I have no answers, I am just thinking out aloud, wondering the best way forward if there is one. The only thing I can see is that no matter what happens there will be even less cash to keep the team going under the WS and no team at all as we know it under the other option if rumours are to be believed. This is truly a watershed moment for the club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StipeIsGod Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Better statement from the WellSoc, but frankly, fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.