Villageman

What concerns me is he seems on the evidence of admittedly only 3 games. It is a goalkeeper, any one striker supported by Halliday and Paton.

Well I am one of the names on the post card and frankly less interested in his business cv, more interested in MFC cv and his performance for MFC. I might have a great cv as a road sweeper but would never make chairman of a football club. No disrespect to road sweepers intended Football managers go to interviews with great cv's., why are so many sacked ? Because it is what you put in in practice not on paper.

Been reading Tommy Cooper books during the close season ?.

Is he out of contract ?. Get him back to Fir Park.

I understand and share your frustration (maybe not the best word) but lets wait until the results of the two votes are available. If they go as I think most of us want to go then surely there has to be recrimination at both board level. We also will need elections firstly to the WS including a new chairperson. That board and its chair as 71% owner has to assert authority over all sections of the Club as it has not done so far.

They did say if not received by Thursday contact them so I guess need a few day to email every member. Checked junk mail ?

My money is on PM 22nd July, each way bet 23rd.

Further to my earlier post I would like to add £3m ie £1m per year is around 5 times the current financial support WS receives so its plan to increase income would still be needed even with Barmack on board.

Hope your vote is a bit clearer.

The one paragraph in this puts in a nutshell for me and I must admit I had missed it. Wild sheep outlines investment of almost £4 in 3 years of which the split is £900k from Barmack RESULTING in £3m from WS. Quite clearly if we can generate £3m we do not need Wild Sheep.

Yes I did see it. However the point I was I was trying to make is finding aa acceptable way of achieving the goal.

Like this ! I will do the same. How many more fans can afford to consider similar action ?. Just think if the monthly contribution of £180k pa could be doubled we would be more than halfway to matching EB 300 k. We need to also find a way to encourage WS members not currently contributing to consider restarting. I do realise that not everyone is in a position financially to do it.

You are confusing me. Next weeks vote called by WS is for WS members only so I believed. If you asking about a shareholders vote i have not seen anything. Guess that needs to come from the MFC Board. If as I hope it is decisive NO vote by the group owning 71% of the shares then there is not much point in asking the 29%.

I get the feeling that those critics of the WS plan would would not be so if it included the sentence. " We will provide £1.9 m over 6 years. " Or am I being cynical. Those same critics do not believe the WS plan will increase future financial support, yet do not seem to have the same doubt the WS CAN provide £1.35m + required under Wild Sheep investment.

Have I missed news of this ?.

Agreed. However points immediately sticks out for me, very possibly my misunderstanding. 300,000 shares issued, WS have 71% equals 213000. 87000 shares held privately. Did not realise share issue was so huge. Second point is that public meeting is not being considered. I have never seen the MFC constitution but there must be a clause in there that allows members ie shareholders , usually a minimum of 3, to request an extraordinary meeting which cannot be refused. Can any shareholder confirm this and be prepared to consider this action. I have not read the rules of the WS lately but surely the same arrangement applies there too.

My experience of Treasurer for a registered charitable organisation with HMRC for the best part of 20 years would confirm that it is unlawful NOT to include loans and grants as income in any given year and repayments too. As the person responsible I would have highlighted the fact it is a loan to auditors and members. Some people quoting that as profit is unavoidable. Not having seen the balance sheets in question I cannot make further comment.

Yes it increasingly looks like the tail has been wagging the dog for some time. And post NO vote that has to change,

For 71% share owning of the Club the WS have two representatives on the MFC board. It is clearly wrong for any representative to vote against the wishes of the organisation who put them there. That is: Were they aware of the WS rejection before the MFC meeting and statement

I read and printed both that were published, first reading confirmed a NO vote and many reads since have not changed my view, However one thing niggles away at me and it may have been asked and answered but missed. This. Board issue statement unanimously recommending acceptance. 5, McMahon, Dickie, Feeley, Lindsay and Caldwell were in favour of acceptance. At this point it is important to remember Dickie and Feeley are there as representative of the WS. WS Board issue rejection after a 6 v 3 vote for this action. We can accept Dickie and Downie were 2 of 3, the we can take a guess at number 3. Timing is now critical, Did the 2 WS reps attend the MFC board before or after the WS meeting to reject .That is were they aware of the view of WS board before attending MFC meeting. May be considered a small item on the overall scheme of things but I beiieve no matter the vote result changes will have to be made and quickly.

just one question. What value did the Investment proposal put on our comedians.

I would expand on that to include " An initial £300 k for day one control of the Club"

Cannot agree with your understanding. He is committing to just less than£2m over 6 years. That is it financially. He also said he and his Organisation will make MFC a more widely known entity which should mean benefits. Nowhere does it say those benefits will end up in MFC pockets. My suspicious mind says they will not.

Making a little comment and may or may have been missed in the financial discussions. As of January this the WS stated that pledging members contributed £180k per annum. I have been a pledging member since 2015 I think. If this proposal gets voted through then my direct debit is immediately cancelled. How many more of the 1500 or so members feel same as I do ?. Definitely potential to make a big difference financially to the WS, Club and reduces the 300k investment substantially. It was also stated back in January that the average monthly pledge was £10 per month from around 1500 members. Tripling that average would generate £360 exceeding the investment proposal. There could be up to 2000 WS members not pledging ( I am aware that many of them paid a lump sum early days) Am I being naive in thinking a combination of these suggestions matches what is known facts about the proposal.

Where is Steelboy when you need FACTS from P & B ?.