Leaderboard

They are in a difficult place now but it's as a result of not asserting themselves months ago. Tbh the offer is so shite i don't think there's a chance it would pass if the Well Society board stood up for fan ownership and spoke out about how much the deal rips us off and puts the club at risk. However it's not clear they are going to do that. The situation right now is: 1. The Well Society board believe that the offer under values us by millions of pounds but are presenting the offer anyway. 2. The Well Society board believe that the first two weeks in July is a bad time to hold a vote but have decided to hold a vote then anyway. 3. They appear to be willing to let Barmack change the Head of Terms after they have been presented and are waiting patiently on a club statement that is probably just a delaying tactic before making their own case. 4. We've heard more about Barmack being a great guy than him making a cash grab on the Society amounting to £2.8m by the terms of the deal. They refuse to put forward the real cost. The Well Society board are 100% in charge of this process legally but appear to be allowing McMahon and Barmack to set the agenda. If that continues we will lose the club.

They aren't "amateur volunteers" they are the elected board members of a legally defined Industrial and Provident Society with over 3000 members which owns over £6m in assets. You don't seem to understand that they have legal responsibilities and that five other bids have been rejected with no vote on them. It's perfectly legitimate to reject a poor offer which endangers the future of the club and society without a members vote.

While that may be the case re the rules and ok for the every day trivial stuff, on a decision as major issue this the the WS members need to be consulted, and cannot be left to a random collection of volunteers elected to the WS board. The members are contributing millions in cash so they should have their say.

Technically it was properly, but I'd still suggest that having your shoulder ahead of a defender's foot does not make you offside. That's not why that particular law was created and needs to be updated if we are going to squabble over millimetres. Personally, I'd open the discussion with the forward needing their entire body to be ahead of the defender before they were offside.

Members shouldn't have to vote every time some twat turns up and says can you please give me £2.8m of your members money.

Exactly. Then he starts signing contracts on behalf of the club with marketing firms and AI developers and before you know it all the money coming from him and the Society as part of the deal is back in sunny California.

Hi folks, Apologies for the delay in response, it's a busy period at the moment as I'm sure you'd all expect, and this is the first time I've had the chance to log back into this forum. Thanks for your patience. As you'll be aware following the club statement on Thursday, there should be further communication coming from the Executive Board very soon. On your specific valuation point, though we don't have the snappy, definitive answer you might be looking for, I hope this response details the thinking of the Society Board and shows why this deal is not in the best interests of the fans or the club. We don't think it is wise to state our valuation of the club for two reasons. Firstly, given that we remain open to investment, should it be beneficial to the long-term security of the club, 'naming our price' could potentially limit other offers should Well Society members reject this proposal, as we recommend they do. Secondly, the club is not for sale. We can say as the elected representatives of the many Motherwell fans who own their club, that we do not want to sell it. That echoes the words of the Chairman at the latest AGM who stressed that the club is not for sale; that's not just the opinion of the Society Board. Putting a price on something you don't want to sell would send the wrong signal. That said, that does not mean we cannot disagree with the club's valuation. Looking at the Chairman's rationale on the club website, we see a host of problems. The outgoing chairman's rationale states a £3.7m debt was taken into account in the valuation. The nature of the debt does not appear to have been taken into account. Half of the Well Society loan (£434k) would be written off under the deal. It is questionable whether the other £434k would ever be returned if this deal went through. The Scottish Government loan is an interest-free loan repayable over 20 years which has been used to fund long-term infrastructure projects that will save the club significant maintenance costs over the term of the loan. The outgoing chairman states that "net assets is only a valid basis to look at the deal if the assets can be sold. Ours can’t be." The club has assets in the playing squad who could potentially be valued at more than the executive board's valuation of the club. We are unclear why the outgoing chairman makes the following assertion. "We have operated at around breakeven over the period since we moved into fan ownership." The club has recorded a combined profit of about £2.5million since we moved into fan ownership. Recent losses have come after major one-off spending on facilities, eg a £1.2million pitch plus building work in the East (John Hunter), a new PA system and much improved CCTV systems. The Hibs comparison, which we referenced in the initial Society statement, is a highly relevant, very recent and illustrative example that highlights why we believe the executive board is under-selling the club. Last week Hibs reported a further sale of shares from existing shareholders which followed on from the Black Knights investment. This values the club at £26m. See a report in the Edinburgh Evening News from last week. https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/hibs-investment-figure-revealed-as-shareholders-pump-in-extra-cash-4663394 Over the past decade, Motherwell have received greater SPFL prize money than Hibs and our transfer income compares well with Hibs. Hibs have made a combined £3.7m loss over the five most recent recorded seasons. Motherwell have made a combined profit of more than £2.5m under fan ownership. Hibernian's outstanding loans stood at £4.9million in their most recent accounts, greater than Motherwell's. Hibs turnover on average over the past six years is about double that of Motherwell's. Yet the valuation of the respective boards is 6.5 times greater/lesser. I'm aware that this is a pretty lengthy response but I hope that it answers some of what you were looking for. We'll be in a position to give you a lot more fairly soon and I'm confident that 'Well fans will see the potential in those proposals. Finally, not quite a Steelboy question, but a few people have asked if it's a case of A or B, so just to clarify that point. If the vote is no, the Society will continue to seek to put into practice its own plans for the future and continue to seek alternative investment opportunities that align with our values and long-term. I know I keep banging on about it being a busy time, but I've been really enthused and inspired by the work the refreshed board have been doing since the turn of the year (this would have been happening regardless of any other proposals), in terms of developing plans for the future of the Society and the club. We have consulted with a range of experts and we will look to share more information on this in our forthcoming communication to members. If this proposal is rejected, simply put - the Society will work closely with the Chief Executive, refreshed Executive Board, and new Chairman on our shared vision for the club.

Certainly not how I remember it, he was a useless unlikable arsehole from day one.

Just to add to my point, I think a lot of people are being taken in by Erik barmack. He’s spent the last few months drip feeding ‘bleeding heart’ content about the club, his kids in well tops etc. I’m experienced in marketing and copywriting and a lot of what he is saying on different platforms is, I want to use a better metaphor here, the words I would use when I’m polishing a turd. There’s a lot of spin and I hope you can all see through it. also I know Erik lurks on here so Hiya!

I never said it was inaccurate I stand by my point its misleading. A loan is debt and if you take on debt to create a profit on a balance sheet its accounting worthy of the water companies. So if we took on a loan every year and create a profit balance every year folk would rightly query why if we went bust why we went bust when we were making profits every year. Its nonsense.

Real eye opener for me the last couple of weeks. Never been one for the intricacies of the club at an operating level, although I do pay in to the society. I have to say a massive thank you to posters on here and on p&b who have exposed this deal for what it is. Posts from Steelboy and St Andrew on here, plus Vietnam91 on p&b and MJ (daft laddie) on Twitter have been excellent and I truly feel have had an enormous amount of sway on the direction of this, so well done all of you. We should never underestimate the power of our voices as fans, and especially as a fan owned club - that’s what we would be throwing away here. Fan ownership would be dead, finished, let’s not be in two minds about it. My concern is that the wider fan base might not be getting this message so we have to all do everything we can to get the message out there. Not just those with votes, but all fans, because I worry that some might devalue the Well Society if it blocks this move.

And VAR being used properly, the offside goal would have taken 5 mins up here

Why not, fan ownership means the fans, aka "the owners" should have a voice. Not some amateur volunteers who seem to have anonymous and ineffective since the WS was formed. The WS members are committing millions to the club, so there should be proper and accountable governance of how that money is used. Then the WS would be a properly run fan group and not the shambles it seems to have been up till fairly recently.

Thanks Dee, appreciate the update. On this last point; I know the statement mentioned the WS would be sharing these plans soon - do you have a timescale? It feels like there's a window of opportunity to sell it as an alternative to the next proposal Barmack submits/is announced by the Club; I know you guys are only volunteers and you've already done a phenomenal amount of work on your plans - I wouldn't want that to go to waste if it's overshadowed by anything the Club announce in the next few days, with an attached narrative that could potentially extinguish your own.

Is that some of that Mexican pizza I keep hearing about?

I accept that, and it's up to the individual who posted the information to deal with the consequences, if any. They likely understood the impact of sharing conversations where a millionaire revealed some startling information. They could have easily considered your point and kept the messages private. Let's be honest, 99% of people would have done that. But they didn't. They've shown a level of courage rarely seen at our club's executive level and, in my opinion, should be commended as a whistleblower. If this deal is rejected, as I believe it should be, they will have done the club's fanbase a great service. What I'm arguing against are those who say they would ignore this information and vote based solely on the "shiny brochure," as someone else put it. Voting only on what Barmack's polished plan says, rather than his actual words and true intentions, is incredibly naive and mind-boggling.

Rab McKinnon, Stephen Pearson, Chris Cadden, Steven Saunders, and Brian Martin.

I think what the past few days have highlighted is that there are major issues with the Executive Board (name should be changed to Club Board) and the Society Board. Although we saw positive change last year to the WS Board, more fresh blood is now required due to resignations. The make up of the Executive Board also needs to be examined as a matter of urgency. We need a settled, forward looklng leadership. I believe there have been some interested local parties who approached the club to invest in the recent past. Without knowing the details, perhaps this avenue could be looked at again? The bottom line is that the WS needs to take control of the Executive Board, being the major shareholder. As far as external investment goes, we require it, not to plug financial holes or to try to improve our status in Scottish football but to consolidate our position, both on but also off the field. That investment has to be right for us though. MFC is our club. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing what this week brings both on and especially off the field.

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead. In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors. Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense. The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

That's essentially what I said, or was trying to say. They were giving their opinion based on their elected status, the Society membership voted for them to be their representatives. The membership then gave them their mandate; consider anything that involves investment in the club, including giving up the Society's majority share. The board said quite clearly thereafter that they would give their opinion on any offer and then put it to the vote. They are always open to hearing the views of their membership and I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been canvassing members they know and also receiving significant volumes of feedback directly. I believe the interview with Speedie and Derek said they'd be looking to host Society meetings to discuss things.

Who mentioned that the wider membership wouldn't get a vote on this? It's already been announced that a two-week ballot will open on 1st July. That is your vote. See above? Who has said there won't be a vote? The level of transparency has largely been influenced by the NDAs that are undoubtedly in effect, or at least were during the executive board's initial discussions with Barmack. Regarding the interview with Ben Banks, it serves as a means for the Society Board to communicate information and their perspectives to the fans. How else would you suggest they do this? Several board members have participated in the forums, including this one, and they are always accessible via email or PM here or on P&B.

Thanks for this Derek. A welcome update. Irrespective of the details its encouraging that there seems to be a willingness to talk and negotiate about external investment generally. The recent debate has been a bit polarised and your tone may just help to heal some rifts. We don't want a divided support.

I'm still hoping for some answers Derek. Cheers.