Goggles & Flippers

Stewards wanting a square go, love it. Seriously though, I can't help but feel if the situation was reversed and a Buddies fan posted something on our twitter, Flow would respond, refer it to Allan Marshall and something would happen.

Reading between the lines there I suspect it should read, "Black not willing to walk and no severance money available so will see out his contract, however if McCall gets a gig before May expect a resignation letter to follow shortly afterwards"

Sutherland on the radio suggested lots of talking points, 50-50 over Thompson being sent for an early shower, St. Mirren denied a goal that should have been avoided. Sounds like a smash and grab but they even out over a season.

I'm sure he also watched them for 5 days in training last week as well.

Got me thinking too Denny, I imagine a scenario where LH didn't step in however JB extended our target by 5 years. To keep things simple I'll suggest the target is £1.5m even though it's been covered that it is less now. So using this as an example today we'd have 1,200 members and £500k in cash assets. Ideally we would have found the extra £1m and JB gifts his shares and we have £1.5m in assets and approx 3,500 members. The actual result is, today we have 1,200 members and £500k in cash assets and LH has stumped up £1m to buy us time as JB wanted out ASAP. We have 5 years to raise £1m at which point LH transfers the shares he holds (?) in trust to the WS and takes his £1m back surely? However that is based he has swollen the WS coffers to £1.5m so in 5 years if we grow on schedule they would be £2.5m. However if he has kept his funds separate surely he doesn't have to do anything, they're purely a guarantee. I suppose the crux of this is the above is mostly conjecture and is one of the key things the WS board have to convey and clarify is the overview of the deal in place ..... when able.

Apologies, I assumed most would be well versed with the JB shareholding.

I should have added "where able", as I'm versed with the 30 day rule and it has been mentioned already. However I'm not looking for specific details (they will follow in time), more an overview to the running and structure under these arrangements. At present Les has effectively bought the club, that to me suggests no WS involvement unless our banked £500k is being used as part of that deal or as a guarantee. If it's the former then I don't fully understand why they are gagged. To me that would be an arrangement between LH and JB. Regardless, as pointed out we have raised approximately £500m to date. JB/club changed the amount to be raised to £1.5m by the end of November so we have effectively raised 33% of that figure. We are told now to secure the club will be less than £1.5m due to a reworking of the budgeting and strategy. Therefore my contention is that the WS currently have between 33%-50% of the funds required to own the club outright based on the above figures. However our current tangible steak is 6% exchanged for loans in the past. The board from my reading is made up of 2 WS board members (of which, one is also club Chairman), 2 legacy appointments (I'm sure most fans are happy to have the continued involvement of Derek Weir and Jim McMahon) and 3 from Les (his daughter and other trusted individuals/colleagues). I hope the WS board members remember that in their dealings they represent a membership that does wield anything from 33%-50% of the club ownership and will represent that membership.

Interesting reading from Brian, a degree of light has been cast however a number of other questions remain unanswered but I respect that its due to legal constraints and they will be fully furnished in time as promised. So according to what I read, Les has effectively taken control of the club from JB (or in the final stages to do so). That would explain his ability to influence things to the degree he has with board appointments, manager approval and direction we will take. This is an interim/facilitation exercise to allow the WS to raise further (undetermined amount but not £1.5m any longer) funds to allow him to walk away in 5 years time (similar to Fergus McCann but without looking to make money from the arrangement). In the interim he will employ various resources at his disposal to change the structure, revenue streams and outgoings of the club to make it fully self sufficient. The bit I don't get and would like clarification on (I would think its answerable even under the current restrictions) is why the club itself is tasked with repaying Les' funds? I would have thought it was for the WS in the interim to raise further funds to effectively give these to Les to allow him to walk when the target is met? It may be a Partnership but in reality if Les wants to implement anything is there a chance he can be overruled? All members of the board are currently there through his largess and wisdom and they will no doubt be aware of that.

Interesting, no answers on Les' involvement though and how its envisaged things will pan out. We're now almost a week from when his was named and we as a membership haven't been furnished with anything tangible other than Les' is a lovely guy and what I've heard on the BBC. Jim Henderson's question deserved a more complete answer. Would maybe suggest that breaking a posed question down into easier to answer bullet points rather than reading something verbatim could work better. I also look forward to the Society answering the questions I posed in the associated thread.

I'm not talking about an in-depth compilation of things from day 1, but something could have very feasibly written in 5 minutes and posted to give an overview and shine a light on the agreement made and most importantly done so to avoid much second guessing amongst the membership. The society has a duty to do this, we're not talking about when the next race night will be, this is fundamental to the Well Society and it's aims. You can't think the society's communication efforts in advance of Les' confidentiality agreement were beyond criticism. While I respect the constraints of a confidentiality agreement I also expect a full explanation when things go public. So far I know roughly the same as a Dundee or Alloa supporter as everything has pretty much been available via public media. We have all contributed money, for a lot at the height of a recession and we deserve to be kept in the loop going forward. However not to dwell. I get Les' involvement, his affinity for the area, the companies he has worked for and his daughters' soft spot. I have taken the following for everything I've read to date, can you confirm which is correct please: 1./ Les approached the society earlier in the year to initially gift the club an amount to take it over/close to the threshold given by JB. correct? 2./ The idea behind this was initially as he's a nice chap and maybe get a few season tickets out of it for his grandkids? 3./ As time progressed, a decision to be more involved rather than just gifting the cash transpired? 4./ Is Les' pledge going initially to the WS then for the WS to transfer it in exchange for JB's shareholding or to JB direct? (subject to due diligence) 5./ Les' actions in appointing people to the main board would suggest it's the latter, while I accept he has contributed a hefty sum, the WS was sold on one member one vote? 6./ Ultimately in the short term, where will JB shareholding go? (-6% already given to WS) 7./ What is/will be, his role within the WS? 8./ The planned date for the transaction of ownership? 9./ Is it envisaged that anything else WS related will be shrouded in secrecy or will all dealings going be conveyed in full when not compromising commercial sensitivities relating to the running of the club? (not talking about boardroom level stuff, we have to trust those appointed on this matter)

I raised a question worthy of him answering in the Well Society or Not thread last night, would be obliged if you could ask him

Firstly thanks to the Society, even more so for posting on the hoof. However its something that should have been drafted well in advance of the announcement on Les' involvement and posted with the green light. There's been a lot of Chinese whispers and conjecture, it could have been avoided with a bit of forethought. Seems to be a recurring issue. Secondly, when we're broke and looking to cut our cloth, adding another level of management seems contradictory to this. What would someone with Chief Exec on their office door do differently from a General Manager? What would you suggest they do in addition to what Flow does presently? Third, Les has injected his cash and appears to be making decisions like a de-facto owner, making appointments and asking others to step down. Now as he's done so with a large chunk of his personal cash you could argue he's entitled to, however £500,000 or so of the £1,500,000 JB asked for to transfer his shareholding was contributed by 1,000 WS members. Strategic and tactical decisions are being made without our input. I'm no way advocating straw polls on every issue, we have to trust the elected board will look after the greater good for the membership they represent. If you don't agree with that direction then garner support and get on the board yourself. The talking point I wish to make is based on the above those who have contributed more have more influence on where the club heads. Does that mean that going forward those who contributed £1k, £5k, and £25k (opposed to the majority who opted for £300), should have more of a say as a precedent has been set, or is it if you contribute such a large amount then you are exempt, a white knight clause.

From what I understand 3 are co-opted and unelected, they may have been asked to step down to make way, however a message from the society to clear it up is now imperative. Come on guys, you read the boards, you know you've been criticised for your communication, however things are now out in the open you can share much more. As someone who has contributed money I really couldn't afford at the time, I don't appreciate hearing what's happening by listening to the radio at 2:45 rather than directly from you.

From the interview I took that Les has asked 2 members of the current board to stay in place (I don't know if that is the two who were already appointed to the the main club board or the WS board). He's also appointed 3 people to the WS board including his daughter who has a background in finance. It would appear he is dictating the makeup of things which considering he is successful and also contributed so much he is entitled to do. I would strongly urge the WS who do montier these boards to furnish the membership and wider support of details of the arrangement as a matter of urgency.

Welcome Iain, I wish you every success. If you can do it for half the money, sell academy players for £5m each and win the Champions League that would be pretty cool. Just be aware that there will always be some on here who will find fault often using conjecture and based on Chinese whispers, accept this will happen and you will receive comments like "well we were unbeaten this season and won the treble, but that 3-0 win over Rangers should have been 5"

Makes you wonder if Tel got wind of Fat Sally throwing in the towel and that prompted his step back from FP?

[media][/media]

Any different from criticisms after the appointment of: Jim Gannon ... who? isn't he mental? Craig Brown ... too old? McCall ... currant bun tendencies? Bradford record? Personally I think and hope it will be someone off the radar.

Please take this as constructive, I do appreciate what you are doing. You're all mates and therefore all your views are pretty much aligned, what tends to happen is someone makes and point and the other two inevitably agree. As much as someone like Steelboy trolls on here, sometimes you need a bit of that to make the debate interesting.

He appears philanthropic but also an astute businessman. For his name to be released after all the secrecy tells us that it has to be close to an announcement. For those rubbishing the South American consortium I also have the thought of Dundee in the back of my mind. However I hope they don't go onto to take over another club and it makes me think back to Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and what could have been.

This place is mental. Nah ditch Butcher because he's had one good gig, one poor one, one good gig, one poor one. VS Former players who's records we're not fully versed with, some conjecture and managing in leagues where the situation surrounding things is hard for us to quantify. And there's some cyber-throwing of season tickets already. God Almighty

If so, it'll be interesting to know the one member one vote will work when the majority of the 1,000 members have contributed £300 and there will be one who has contributed £1 million ish.

Club has to be clever on this, didn't one of two at the time McCall was appointed take the hump they weren't the first choice (Sbragia?) With respect to Black, I would imagine the board know as soon as McCall gets a new gig he will follow quickly afterwards.

So a solution is to snipe from the wings on an online forum, the beauty of the WS is that any member can influence things if they garner enough support. If you have no desire to do so then that's your business. You're not asked to run the club, lets be clear. If you make the full club board then you would be presented with information and be in a position to ask pertinent questions, afterwards you would vote with the position of those you represent in mind. Primarily the running of the club would stay 90% the way it does already. Weir, McMahon and Burrows will continue to run the club they seem to have a bit of an idea of how Scottish Football works. At present if JB wants the club to go in a certain direction then it does, if the WS become the controlling party then it will be I suspect by majority rule (by which I mean the board, not a referendum to the general WS membership). You merely influence the direction it takes not the implementation.

You banking on Ainsworth giving more than 65% in a game too?