dennyc

Entirely as I see it. We agree. The only thing I would add is that since last year's changes to the WS Board, the new regime has been trying to effect change whilst battling internal barriers (Hopefully those barriers will soon be history). Seeking a return to original operating principles and testing more closely any request from MFC or other bodies for the release of those monies. So that is to their credit. It does strike me that it is no coincidence this attempt to diminish the Society further comes at a time when uncomfortable questions were being posed and the Club Board's influence within the Society was under threat. Suddenly the Society is not as compliant and so McMahon etc are under pressure.

Oh I know the PSC thing is not the important thing right now. But it does support our view that the WS is being marginalised by the Exec Board and has been for a wee while. I think it highlights a disrespect of the fan Membership and weakens their position in the eyes of outsiders.

Not able to check your calculations but this could be very significant. We discussed earlier the WS being recently removed as a Person of Significant Control (PSC) and the confusion that exists about that non status. Seemed illogical to us. Company House guidelines state a 25% Shareholding is necessary to be recorded as a PSC. So falling to 22% would automatically rule the Society out. Might not be to the forefront given everything that is going on but it does add to the concerns. And does tie in with the Society being sidelined. Struck me that the WS hold substantial funds at present. So I wonder if the Board have sought proper independent (emphasis on independent) legal advice regarding the proposal and it's implications. They can easily afford it and would seem like a logical step. Apologies if that has already been covered.

Cheers David. I did the same search and like you could find nothing to confirm payments directly to Clubs. Unlike the FIFA and UEFA sites which specifically confirm such payments. It is a FIFA recommendation to all regional authorities so hopefully that carries some weight. A few years ago CONMEBOL was under severe financial pressure and had difficulties paying out for a number of their tournaments. Since then however the have secured substantial television deals/sponsorships which were believed to have put them in a good place. Fingers crossed.

No offence meant to anyone, and i know this won't be well received, but do we actually know what powers the Society has with regard to the football Club? We are all hung up on majority shareholding and seem to be assuming that what we say is what happens. 100%. On every matter. That as majority owners we dictate. For instance, what % of Shareholders is required to bin an Exec Board Member? Not saying it is, but it could be 80%. Built into the constitution. If you think about it, when the WS was created and moving towards 50% plus, the Exec Board would have been crazy to give that 50% plus the right to sack any one of them at the slightest excuse. That's like turkeys voting for Christmas. It's fairly common for different actions to require different %s to vote in support. Just saying we need to be cautious in what powers we assume the Society has. I do agree it is about time they started using those powers though. I'm certainly not defending the Exec Board, far from it, but I do think we need to know our facts before laying into the WS Board/

If The WS Board have pointed out the undervaluation as they see it, does that not give them and their Members a valid reason to reject the offer? So putting it to a vote with that undervaluation on show might actually help to achieve the outcome you want by swaying some folk that are undecided. Of real interest to all, should be the hinted at financial situation the Board Finance person referred to as being a major factor leading to that low valuation. I think in his response to Vietnam91? On P&B maybe.

To confirm this. I was a bit concerned to hear they had been unlisted so contacted Society. Tom Feely told me the Society had been on and off as Persons with Significant Control (PSC) over the years as there was a view within the WS that they should be listed. Companies House records confirm that on/off situation over the years. So there is confusion. I was also told by Tom that In their last correspondence with Companies House the Club had been advised that if they continued to list the Society as a PSC, then they could be penalised. I pointed out the St Mirren situation and did not really get an answer other than "We are only doing what we are told". I was never told why in fact the WS did not qualify. Investigation via Companies House site. I confirmed there are several factors taken into account as to when a PSC situation would apply. One is indeed share holding % but 25% and NOT 75% is the cut off. Please note though that % share is not always the deciding factor or the only qualification required. The entitlement to vote at Board Meetings and also the power to add and remove Board Members come into play. In short, someone might have 50% Shareholding and not qualify. Someone with 25% but who can vote and/or dismiss and appoint Board Members would qualify. I do not know the full list of powers which the Society hold. I do know the Shareholding % more or less. But does anyone know for a fact that they are entitled to appoint or dismiss Exec Board Members or even that they do carry a vote as Society Reps? Either might be the deciding factor. No doubt someone will be able to unearth exactly what powers the Society hold. One thing for sure, it is not as simple as shareholding %. Oh, and the PSC criteria applies to Groups as well as individuals. I did wonder about that but the WS is a Body that would qualify. I have never gotten to the bottom as to why the Society is not listed as a PSC. I did wonder if the terms which were agreed when the WS was founded were such as to ensure it did not qualify. Perhaps by withholding certain Powers? Most likely the power to remove a Board member? One for the new Society Board to investigate via their legal support. All very complicated and clear as mud I'm afraid.

Thanks for that. Makes their vote even more unacceptable to my mind.

Cheers. I was thinking that loyalties might lie with whichever Board they were appointed to in the first instance. Trying to find a reason for them going against the majority view of the Society Board when voting on the Exec Board. Also trying to convince myself they might not just do what the Club Chairman dictates. Alternatively they might be privy to information that has not been made public. Hopefully all becomes clear soon. The Club update perhaps.

I'm not convinced they even voted in accordance with their own personal viewpoints. Were either on the MFC Board prior to being placed on the Society Board? In which case one or both might just have elected to vote with their original buddies to whom loyalties still lay. Might explain why neither has outlined their reasons for ignoring the views of the Society when it came to that vote. Just a gut feeling on my part though. But I was not surprised at how Dickie in particular voted. In hindsight two existing Society Board members should have joined the Exec Board with two of their existing Members joining the Society Board. Two voices on each Board providing the thoughts of the other Board. Might still have been a 5-2 Exec Board in favour but at least the Society stance would have been recorded for all to see. Similarly I would have understood the 2 Exec Reps voting 'No' in a Society Board vote. Apologies if that does not make too much sense. I know what I mean, but explaining it is a challenge. Somebody else will likely put it more simply.

I hope this update will include the up to date financial position which I believe was used as one of the main reasons for the low value placed on the Club. If it does not, then it should do as the Financial Secretary openly introduced that factor without actually quoting figures. So, on the grounds of being open and above board the current situation should be no secret. I'm pretty sure the potential investor will have seen those figures. If not, he is not as astute as made out. It is all covered on previous chat either on here or on P&B if anybody wants to check. I'm far from convinced that the Society will have had much input to the update. Hopefully I'm wrong in that though.

So essentially some sort of debt needs to remain to secure that safeguarding Charge over Fir Park. Which was the reason we asked for it all those years ago. With no debt, how can we guarantee any new Board (as majority shareholders?) would not simply apply to have it removed? Thus exposing Fir Park to all sorts. Currently, if the Exec Board wanted to Mortgage FP to secure finance I understand the WS as 1st Charge holders would have to agree? But I'm no property lawyer. That Charge together with the debt also ensures that the WS would be more than just ordinary creditors were the Club to fail. Otherwise it would be so much in the £ rather than full repayment. Essential to assist with any 'new' Club arising from the ashes. Worst case scenario of course but it was a consideration and a sensible move. I was actually relieved when it was confirmed the Club owed a sizeable amount to the Society, for the very reasons above. I did wonder if the reason Les H and Jim McM moved the Society away from the original loaning agreement was a long term game looking at freeing the Charge. Credit to the new Society Board for driving a move back to the original set up. And no, I don't believe you are being cynical at all. Either that or we both are.

Don't worry. You can fill your boots if we sign a Salmon, Trout or Pike.

The part about the Society charge over the Stadium raised alarm bells with me. By whatever means, if the outstanding Loan disappears does that mean the Charge falls automatically? Perhaps like someone repaying a Mortgage. The point being that the Society do not own FP, they hold a charge over it in view of the outstanding debt. That situation needs looked at by someone far more legally aware than most of us. Getting that Charge agreed several years ago was driven by Society members and was not intended from day one. I know that for sure because I (and others) raised that point directly with Tom Feeley. In fairness, several months later it was in place as a much needed safeguard.

I took it, as the monies were actually in place at the moment, that it was a tactic to reduce the Bank balance over time. Ultimately making the Society weaker and more likely to collapse. I doubt whether subscriptions would offset the payments. Also would make it almost impossible to effect any sort of repurchase in two years time.....or ever. Maybe I'm just too suspicious. And does reducing/writing of the monies owed to the Society by MFC affect the Security the WS holds over FP. I would have thought Barmack would want that gone as well and will likely be part of the masterplan in due course. All too risky for me, and ultimately threatens MFC itself. You make a Hearts comparison. Can I throw in Hibs as well? I know a good few on here are dubious, but both appear to be doing ok without having to hand over a majority holding. Or empty the coffers. I get they have different structures, but given time I am sure we can secure better than is currently on offer.

Well said that man. I do worry that many Society Members have not grasped the true impact on the Society and what in reality we are being asked to surrender. And I don't in any way mean to be disrespectful to anyone. I'm no expert either. I truly believe that if this deal is bludgeoned through, requiring annual commitments, loan write off and ultimately the handing over of majority ownership then it will see the demise of the WS. At the very least membership and subscriptions will drastically reduce and where will that leave the football club in time of need? What you have laid out should become required reading before any vote. And I say that as someone who does believe the Club needs external support if we are to maintain our position. (That is a different discussion) But not at any cost and certainly not on these terms. Hopefully at the end of the day we end up with a new, forward thinking Exec Board who are genuinely committed to finding someone to work in Partnership with the WS rather than regarding it as an inconvenience to be kept at arm's length.

When he moves up I wonder if he will stay in Larkhall or maybe Eaglesham? Or if he will want to be closer to Fir Park, say in the Ravenscraig area. If he is no good he can move to Titwood in Glasgow.

Something to crow about when we sell him on for £2m?

Prompted by this, I gave in and read the P&B thread, or at least the last few pages. All I would add is ....... Listen to Vietnam91. If he is who I think he is, then he is in a better position than many to evaluate the entire situation.

As long as he is not just another looking to feather his nest. Hopefully with him on board we can take flight next season.

My take on things is that McMahon....and perhaps others on the Exec Board.....have always regarded the WS as a hinderance rather than an asset. Good for PR but little else. The Society's only value being the cash it generates. And until recent Society Board changes that cash was readily accessible more or less for whatever purpose the Exec Board judged appropriate and on terms far different from those established when the Society was created. Had the original concept been followed there would currently be in excess of £2m in the Society coffers. Others can confirm the exact amount. Those changes to the Society Board have brought about a desire to return the Society to it's original way of operating and at the same time reduced McMahon's control over Society decisions. A desire that was having a positive outcome with funds starting to accumulate and under greater control. For that reason I feel the new WS Board have earned our patience. But their role is to grow the Society, not run the Club on a day to day basis. Their are professionals to do that. With that source of readily available funds under question moving forward, and if we can agree that it would benefit the Club to secure additional finance to assist on and off the field, McMahon and the Board now have to seek alternative solutions. Hence the Taylor Swift video. Please remember that this a gentleman who has been in control of the Club for a number of years and has failed to secure any meaningful investment in that time, relying almost entirely upon the WS. Under pressure, McMahon has now decided to head off and is desperate for that to happen quickly. Barmack has provided him with his get out of jail card and McMahon is doing whatever is required to push a deal through, possibly at the expense of the WS which in my personal opinion would please him greatly. I find it revealing that, if the comments on P&B are to be believed, the information provided to Barmack has painted a wholly incorrect picture. Both with regard to the WS stance and the valuation of the Club. Who to believe? It also rankles that the WS are to write off all monies due to them from MFC. Again totally against what was promised way back in the day. I think that stipulation is huge and a step to far. So either the Club's finances are not as we think (and before anyone jumps in, I do not think the position is critical or we are in danger) or McMahon and the Board have run out of ideas and, coupled with the relationship with the Society changing, they mostly want a way out. Like several have in recent times. A point to remember, even if the Barmack proposal falls and he walks away, we have not lost any existing income streams. Perhaps that fact has been lost sight of in all the upheaval? Anyway, that's my take on things. I am not 'on the inside' and I want to make that clear. Just as I see it.

Is he a winger 😀

Not true. But thanks for confirming your approach regards folk with even a slightly different view than yourself. You have brought more to this debate than anyone and are being proven correct on almost everything you have highlighted from day one. So thanks for that. But responses like that detract from the valid points you make. Did you even need to respond if you thought the question so basic?

Sorry but that response is out of order. The poster asked a genuine question, and qualified it, only to be treated like shite. Do you really think other fans are not asking or thinking the same thing? Not everyone is into this whole affair as strongly and aware as you are. Everybody on here is looking for the best way forward and with the Society's and Clubs best interest at heart. Are you big enough to apologise?

And certainly, as owners, direct the Club Board rather than be dictated to by that Board. Perhaps some good can come out of this whole affair at the end of the day.