Leaderboard

Thanks for the sanctimonious post that has become your trademark but go and tell that to the numerous hangers on ive seen today including very young children holding and waving ulster flags while their alleged parents obviously the worse for drink sing " no surrender " The description of them in a previous post was accurate. The bigotry between the blue and green uglies is Scotlands shame and has no place in modern society.

@Mintymac, absolutely spot on. Any membership organisation is only as strong as it's members to an extent and it's more than important than ever that we all push forward collectively to grow fan-ownership and the football club. What I've been really impressed with in recent weeks and months is how many people have came forward to offer their skills, expertise and time. It's really important that we utilise our membership. We've got over 4,000 members and we need to find out what people can bring to the table. That doesn't necessarily mean sitting on a board or attending meetings every week, but it could be lending your skills to a project, giving pointers or opening doors etc. As a Society Board member (for now 😊), I'd like to thank all members of The Well Society who engaged in the process regardless of opinion. It’s been a costly, time-consuming and emotionally draining exercise, but this has been fan-ownership in action It’s energised members, improved communication and boosted numbers. In my opinion, it’s a really positive time to be a Well fan and I hope everyone can start pulling in the same direction. Attention now immediately turns to delivering, alongside the Chief Executive and a new club board, on the strategy set out in our plan. We've also got the opportunity for members to join the board with elections in the coming weeks. If anyone is considering standing and would like to discuss what that may entail if you are successful, feel free to reach out. Another reminder that our Annual General Meeting will take place on Monday 12 August 2024. I'd really encourage all members who can attend to sign up and come along. If you’ve not already, please consider joining The Well Society, or if you are already a member please consider upping your subscription. Happy to answer any questions.

I'll try to summarise one of the best points I heard from a board member.... At the moment board members are sacrificing time they could be spending with their families or on their careers to contribute to the Society and club. Members are contributing money they have worked hard for. if Barmack's deal goes through any time or money put into the Society will be a free contribution to Erik Barmack making a profit on his investment. Why would anyone want to do that?

I think there is a need for the Society Board to be very careful and diplomatic throughout all of this; they're a very public face of a very public opposition to something the Exec Board is pushing. I think resorting to calling out/naming and shaming wouldn't be in their best interests; it would just fuel the fire of those opposing them and give them more ammo to paint them as "daft wee lads and lasses who aren't business people". Being professional and doing things in the manner which they're doing them demonstrates an incredible level of control and dignity. They're also going to stand up on Wednesday and take questions and listen to their members/fans; something the Exec Board aren't willing to. That speaks volumes to their character and belief in what they're presenting. Edit: I think by all means we as fans/non-board members can call out the hypocrisy of certain ex-board members and others, but I think the current Board are handling themselves brilliantly.

We've finished 3rd and played in Cup Finals under that model. 300 grand a year from Erik Barmack isn't going to change anything on the park.

I don't often post on here but feel compelled to put down my thoughts on this somewhere to see if I'm missing something. So here are my thoughts (apologies, it's a long one): There seems to be a view from some that the club are in some dire situation and need to accept any investment we can get. This simply isn't the case as far as I can see and even if it was we could likely sell Miller and/or Bair this week and be secure financially. Given our turnover, we will always be a club running close to breakeven over the longer term and like most clubs in Scotland part of our business model will involve selling players on at a profit. There is nothing concrete in the proposed deal that suggests any of this will change. The financials of the deal from an existing shareholder perspective simply don't make sense, even with the revised terms. The valuation placed on the club of £4m can be debated but taking that as acceptable, the WS currently owns 71% of the shares (71% x £4m = £2.84m). At the end of this 6 year deal the WS own 50.1% and Wild Sheep Sports owns 47% but during this period, the WS has to invest an additional £1.35m and Wild Sheep Sports invests £1.95m. So even if at the end of the term, the club has made no progress and retains the £4m valuation, (ignoring the impact of inflation etc.) Wild Sheep Sports have a holding worth £1.88m from a total investment of £1.95m, while the WS have invested £1.35m and written off half of the loan given to the club and seen their holding go from a value of £2.84m to £2.004m. Swap out the WS for an individual investor and where is the incentive for them to accept these terms? Would an individual not simply say, if you want the club, front up the £2.84m and you can buy my shares (assuming they agreed with the £4m valuation)? Point two becomes even more ridiculous when you look at what Wild Sheep Sports get from day 1. They invest £350k, hold 8% of shares but get 3 board members (same as the WS) and have a deciding vote where there is a 4-4 tie, meanwhile should there be a requirement to plug any shortfall in the finances, the WS is still on the hook for that. In addition, if Wild Sheep Sports turn out to be a shambles and the WS want rid of them, they basically just walk away with their money back in 2 years and the only losers are the club and the WS. I struggle to believe that any other company would accept an 8% shareholder having this level of influence with such a low level of risk. Wild Sheep Sports suggest they can add value but have provided no actual details of their plans or any figures / targets. I appreciate you wouldn't share all the granular detail but simply throwing out buzzwords about "engagement" / "interaction" or whatever it is, along with teasing some documentary suggestion means absolutely nothing. There is also no suggestion of how they plan to generate a return from their investment - the obvious assumption is that they hope to increase the value of the club and sell their holding after 6 years and/or start paying dividends. Even if they did enhance the financials of the club, the valuation of the club would have to more than double for the WS to maintain the value of their holding and break even (again ignoring inflation) from their investment (current £2.84m holding + £1.35m investment = £4.19m with a 50.1% = a valuation of £8.36m) - this seems extremely unlikely. A lot of noise is being made by a number of fans suggesting that the WS have to provide some sort of counter proposal, otherwise this should automatically be accepted, which again makes no sense. This isn't like a general election where both parties put forward a manifesto and you pick the one you like. The WS is the majority shareholder currently and is the status quo, while the Wild Sheep Sports proposal is the alternative. The question is simply is the alternative an improvement on the status quo? Given the above points I would suggest this is a deal that would never see the light of day in any other business, and it seems blatantly obvious to me that the status quo, which has delivered modest profits for the club over the long term and kept us competitive in the top flight, is the much better option.

Feeley should not be chair. We cannot have the head of the Society a bloke who doesn't believe in the purpose of the society.

According to Boyd his career started when he joined the green uglies, as if his time at Fir park and the 91 cup win never happened he's an obnoxious tosser.

Unfortunate name, Sounds like a west coast dating site.

Time for the Society board to step up then! Fans will get behind them but only for so long...done plenty of talking since the proposal from Barmack came to the table, now it's time for action.

Careful now, someone might start quoting the scriptures at you.

No narrative from me just a good few years of seeing the bigotry, hatred and religious intolerance that comes with the ugly sisters and their wider fan base, particularly in west Central Scotland, no doubt the "Well fans on parade" were supporting their big team as the saying goes.

Barnack's deal is a no from me. For £300,000 he gets to be chairman with two of his people on the board of eight. If the CEO or FD get a better offer, get pissed off or are driven out EB can appoint another pal and it's now 4 of 8 and with his casting vote now has full control. I have seen nothing of a business plan other than some vague notions of a documentary and expanding interest in us in the USA. He has admitted knowing very little about running a soccer club. For his investment of £1.9 million he increases his shareholding from zero 47 per cent. In contrast for investing £1.3 million the Society sees it's share dropping from 70 per cent to 50.1 per cent. That is just mad. With the Well Society Board at least we have people with the club's interest at heart, not some unknown. As a Well Society member and also a shareholder that is two nos from me.

I wish neither party any harm. Rather than focus on retribution, revenge, vendettas, punishement and reprisals its now time for all of us to get behind the Society and club to work for positive change and to support the former's strategy. Personnel changes should be actioned in a timely but business like and objective way. We've no time for negative distractions now.

It’s not simply that he was a Celtic fan that Boyd is so hated, but I suspect you know that anyway. Tommy Coyne, Stevie Kirk, Faddy, Brian Martin, Owen Coyle, Phil O’Donnell to name but a few were all Celtic fans and that fact was relatively well known but none of them are being put forward for ‘former players that you wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire’ so I think we can put any suggestions that the only reason Boyd’s name is being mentioned is simply down to him ‘being a Celtic fan’ firmly to bed. Boyd has repeated shown himself to be an obnoxious arsehole who has frequently disrespected our club and our fans over the years despite where he started his career. Anyone who saw his behaviour before the 2011 Scottish Cup Final will know what I’m talking about. The fact that he is also a Celtic fan on top of his odious behaviour does heighten my dislike for him as he represents the worst type of Celtic person for me and I make no apology for that. He has all the detestable Celtic attitubutes… arrogant, obnoxious, condescending constantly stirring shit and stoking up bad feeling and paranoia whenever he’s given a platform to open his mouth and can’t/wont see anything from a non Celtic perspective. I’ve said this before on here, whenever I’m unfortunate enough to have to watch our away games against them on Celtic TV I actually find Peter Grant (another well known Celtic fan and a player I couldn’t stand back in the day) ten times more tolerable than Boyd.

Is theis the 'big name' people have been waiting for ??

See honestly, i was off SO for a while because of this kind of post. No idea why this guy hasn’t been banned. It’s boring, banal troll shite. Genuinely, what does this guy bring to the forum?

🤮🤮🤮 Why black? The trim looks more red & yellow than claret & amber especially on the socks. We could pass for Partick Thistle in this get-up! Sorry I’m a traditionalist and IMO our change strip should always be white with claret & amber trim.

The woman was a retired Fifa Grade referee. I didnt think she tried to justify decisions, more explain why they would be given in line with current IFAB rules. There was one decision in particular (cant remember which) that she explained why the decision had been given in line with the rules, but then said, "if you ask me my personal opinion, you would get a different answer". I think it was to do withba penalty handball incident. I thought it was actually quite refreahing ro get a referees insight as it explained a lot of stuff. I think IFAB are the problem. Not the referees.

I E-Mailed the Society to confirm things and was advised that if the turnout threshold of 35% was not reached, then there will be no change. No change means the proposal from Barmack is rejected.

Please don't expect me to say yes to a proposal that will reduce our substantial shareholding of 71% to 50.1% ( changed only because we didn't accept their first offering), while also us putting nearly as much money into the offer as Wild Sheep and giving them from day one, chairmanship of the board and another two directors for a paltry £300k. Then after six years a small change of hands of shares, could reduce our shareholding below the 50.1% and everything would be effectively run by Wild Sheep. My vote is in.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/24438541.motherwell-board-tarnish-legacy-handling-investment/ Graeme McGarry with another spot on article.

You really had me going there 🤣

Just had the Civica email through to vote, it went into my junk folder just to forewarn anyone that possibly thinks they haven't received it to check! Should come through from takepart@cesvotes.com I've voted to reject the Wild Sheep offer as both a Well Society member and as a shareholder, I'd urge anyone still undecided to look at how heavily weighted towards the incoming party that this 'offer' is. The 2yr buyback option for instance means the Society would be out of pocket to the tune of £1m. The Barmack's would leave with the £600k they would've put in by then?! Giving an incoming chairman casting vote and control of the board from day one on an 8% shareholding wouldn't fly in any other business and it shouldn't do here either!

That's a great statement to make today. Compare it to Wilson who had nothing substantial to say and there's surely only one way for sensible fans to vote. I've already got my Reject vote in.

I decided to vote against it personally after some thought. I like the Societys plan but I do want the club to work on financial security so we’re safe in the event of relegation while actively working to avoid it. I want the well society to start acting like the custodians and have control of the club board as well. They own 70% surely they can appoint a chairman themselves.

If all those pro-Protestants go to church tomorrow they'll run out of pews across the West of Scotland.

This for me is where the real risk lies for the club (and us as supporters). Much has been spoken about the pro's and con's of both plans. In a perfect world we could negotiate a deal where the best elements of both plans could be incorporated and a collegiate approach found to the running of the club. However, thats not where we are. The current deal gives all the power and control to Wild Sheep Sports whilst they bear none of the risk. All of the risk falls on the Well Society (ie the supporters). Thats why this is a bad deal. Thats why it needs to be voted down.

Firstly, I don't think EB or the WS have convinced me with their proposals. But to suggest that your fellow supporter is stupid if they have a different opinion on the deal is quite cringeworthy and says more about you. EB has put a proposal on the table as have the WS, neither of which have blown me away. I think the WS are well intentioned but i also dont think EB is sitting in a swivel chair stroking his cat pondering how he will take over the world with the vast sums of money he will make from the demise of Motherwell FC. I believe he is also well intentioned and not the villain some of you are trying to suggest he is. Lets hope all can find some common ground and not be millitant toward people trying to assist in driving Motherwell forward whoever it is, EB or the WS.

Twat

Can we cut SOD some slack? Really get fed up with the stick the guy gets. Aye he isn't the world's best but always an honest pro and when you hear him speak not the most confident lad. Wears the claret and amber so let's give him encouragement

All this signifys to me is we are simply a body down in midfield. Anyone thinking paton is the answer to making our midfield tick or linking midfield & attack has been out in the Scottish sun too long. If we cant find another player who can as a minimum provide what paton can do then we are in bother.

I still don't know why McMahon Dickie and Feeley thought this deal would be good for the club but am prepared to cut them some slack as I think in their own minds they must have genuinely (but foolishly) thought it was the best way forward. The 3 of them are died in the wool 'Well fans so why would they want something that would harm the club they've supported all their lives, that's the thing I can't get my head around. Regardless of that I would like to think that they will now do the right thing and resign their positions and allow the new kids on the block to pick up the reigns and drive the club forward but be there for any help or advice they are asked for because at the end of the day they have been relatively successful at running the club regardless of recent events. What we don't want is some kind of power struggle.

I think it's telling that you turn the game into how many we could have conceded rather than enjoying the victory and looking at how many goals we could have scored. I do agree both areas need improving. As long as lessons are learned I can live with early season frustrations as players build up to full fitness and sharpness. So to be positive rather than negative, I have seldom seen us create as many clear cut chances as we did yesterday. The one goal we did concede was down to a brain fart by Ebiye and following a clear foul on Casey which the referee ignored. (Casey booked for showing the referee the stud marks on his leg). But for two great saves denying Miller and a string of poor finishes from a host of players we could easily have scored eight or more goals. But I suspect if we had won 8-3 some folk would prefer to look at the 3 rather than the 8.

Have a day off and stop talking pish.

Some good posts on P & B about the state of the POD Stand. Its long overdue serious refurbishment or replacement. There's no doubt its been badly neglected in recent years. A lick of paint simply won't cut it. Broken seats, seats bolted to steps, inadequate catering and toliet facilites. I could go on. Apart from the seating area, the hospitality suite and other facilities are way past their sell by date. Its a bit of an embarassment from a bygone era. A refurbishment was mooted a year or two back, but that has been quietly forgotten. In short it needs replacing, but that won't come cheap. Hopefully the winds of change blowing through the club now will sweep away this old and tired relic.

I don't think anyone is expecting them to be doing the latter, stop being so fucking condescending. The Society absolutely has to start acting on its own proposal; they're already doing that based on their statement here as they're talking with Caldwell about next steps etc. We also all need to step up, too, as fans. The Society recognises the Club needs backing and that we need to do better raising funds to support it, so if we can, we should be upping our restarting our contributions just like @wellfan. It's not time for any of us to sit still and say "they'll deal with it, it'll be fine." Nope. It's time for us to be the ones making the difference, however we can.

What kind of action are you expecting to see? If the Well Society was able to match Barmack's funding by putting £300,000 a year into the club it's not going to be noticeable to us as fans. Continued stability is the priority not doing stupid things like investing £4m into a crackpot business plan just to be seen to be doing something.

It's possible for opinion to evolve, you don't have to take a fundamentalist position, especially in an ever changing landscape like football. Bair was rubbish at St Johnstone. When we signed him, Kettlewell obviously saw something in him, but he had no track record as a player and I don't think the fan reaction was unjustified. He was better at Motherwell and I think almost all were happy enough to judge him on his form in claret and amber. I think it will be interesting to watch his career because he's a difficult player to really judge. I'd compare him to someone like Cedric Kipre, he has an athleticism and physique that puts him above our level, but he's very raw and you wonder if he has the technique or game intelligence to really go to the top of the game. Good luck to him and hopefully we get to invest some of the fee in the team.

No doubt, however plenty of evidence how impeccably the WS Board has conducted themselves diplomatically as well as solid factual arguments as to why this was a farcically terrible deal. My take on it is Chairman Jim was happy to pay lip service to fan ownership while there was a passive WS to not give him much push back, he has seen the change in skillset, attitude, and a more challenging WS Board and shown his true colours by trying to kill the WS with this deal

Add another one to the reject list folk’s

When we were all kids we were told we should be seen and not heard. We were told that you shouldnt do politics and religion in public. These tropes were peddled by folk who wanted to ensure that good people didnt get beyond their stations and try and make life a little bit better for everyone. Thankfully, a lot of good people ignored that shite and life has got better for women, catholics, jewish folk, muslims, gay people, folks of ethnic origins etc etc. You dont need to not talk about these things at the football. You just need to be "sound" and not be an arsehole.

Have I missed something? What cash are they expecting to get out with? At least keep things factual.

Was that directed at me? If so, from everything I’ve shared (and there's been a lot!), that's your takeaway? No concerns about the lack of clarity on penalties for missing those payments (hint: it will happen if this deal goes through. The Well Society simply won't get the support it needs to meet those figures). And sorry, but I'll be as vocal as needed when I believe someone is trying to push a deal that benefits them at the expense of our stadium and potentially puts it at risk. That might not concern you much, but it certainly concerns me.

First line. "Our vision for Motherwell FC stems from a passion for the club...." Erik Barmack is a multi millionaire who has found the time to attend one solitary Motherwell game in his entire life. If you swallow this shite you will swallow anything.

As others have said, we are doing fine without US money. If you look at our accounts since the Society took control, they are actually quite healthy. A lot of that is thanks to Les Hutchison who, when he took charge, articulated a very clear plan of how he wanted the club re-structured, how his money should be spent, how his loans should be paid back, how many new fans needed to join the Society, and what his exit plan was. Exactly what you want to hear from an investor. Exactly what we are NOT hearing from EB.

The plan looks good. Hopefully we can all get behind it as a support and move into the next stage of fan ownership. McMahon's deal gives us just six years of 'security'. The Well Society is how we genuinely secure the club for future generations of fans.

It's hard to believe that anyone who has watched football for more than 2 minutes can't grasp that good individual players can play for bad teams. We were one of the worst teams in Scotland last year, but Georgie Gent and Brodie Spencer were the attacking wing backs we needed. If you want to go back a little further, in 2002-03, we finished bottom of the league and were saved from relegation because Falkirk didn't meet SPL stadium requirements. That was the season Faddy scored 15 goals and established himself as a top player. Some might argue he was the attacking player we needed.

With you on that

You may have a point regards how some people regard the Society and fan ownership. But that is hardly the issue here. To focus on the Society at this time deflects greatly from the real issue. In fact that deflection is exactly what the sponsor of this proposal has orchestrated. The only issue that needs focusing on immediately is that the Exec Board (fronted by a Chairman desperate to retire) has put forward a proposal lacking content which will immediately yield control of the Club to a minority Shareholder. Although in time that minority will almost certainly become a majority and lead to the demise of the Well Society. As for the three members of the Society Board who supported the proposal, I think it is telling that not one has gone on record, despite numerous requests, to outline why they came to that decision. Exactly what benefits they thought Mr Barmack would bring to the Club, and by association the fan base/Society. Why is that? If they have valid reasons, help me to understand. I am big enough to accept I may be missing something . In contrast to the other six Board Members, who released a statement explaining exactly why they voted against the plan and detailed the threat they believed it presented. Historically, the Society began well and grew at a reasonable rate, in line with the hopes of those that fought to bring it into being, and for the purpose it was created. Not perfect by all means but then what new Organisation is? Sadly over time, through several Club Board changes and aided by influences within the Society Board itself, the Society became more and more sidelined and it's manner of operation changed dramatically and secretly. And not to the benefit of Society or fans. Recent changes to that Society Board brought about a re-examination of the purpose and operation of the Society. That brought about increased resistance from the Club Board. A tightening and closer scrutiny of funds being passed to the Club plus a desire to be respected as the major shareholder being prime causes of that friction. Ironically, the exact factors many detractors of the Society, including myself, wanted addressed! And then, out of the blue, we are faced with this urgent need for outside finance, despite assurances only a couple of months ago from our Chairman that all was fine financially....no need for panic. And suddenly it is the responsibility of the long ignored Well Society to come up with an alternative should the Barmack proposal be rejected. A proposal they were shockingly not afforded the opportunity to be part of negotiating. Despite their status. Of course the Society needs to look at itself and seek improvement in several areas. Communication, Record keeping,Online presence being three that spring to mind. But progress has been made and without the influence of certain individuals I believe that improvement will continue and gather pace. But the issue before us right now is the Barmack proposal. That proposal is what we must not be distracted from looking at in detail. Despite Mr McMahon's best attempts