Villageman

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 ?.

Plenty of crowd scenes, pity didn't show the schoolboys enclosure, might have been able to pick myself out. Aged 14 thanks to Dalziel High.

Would someone if they still have the mail asking us to vote please post. I maybe wrong but I seem to remember it said along the lines of " Outside investment even if it reduced WS holding to less than 51%"

That's probably making things overly simple. As I have posted previously in my opinion we could have a much more complicated scenario. At time of vote it was said we had 3800 members. After the vote it was divulged that only 1500 were currently supporting he WS financially. My argument would be whether the "missing" 2300 or part thereof would care what percentage the WS owned. Bluntly if I contribute for say 8 years I would likely vote a certain way, on the other hand if I had not contributed for the same period how would I vote or even bother to vote. When the vote to accept or decline investment comes this anomaly as I see it has to be resolved.

MFC registered OFFICERS @ Companies House are Keys as Secretary, Dickie, Feely and McMahon. 4 only.

I think I posted elsewhere, maybe not as some of my posts appear to be missing. It was : Pockets of share at a value of £250. Would need 2000 fans or others to reach a total of £500k.How many would do it. Based on only 1500 members contributing £10 average can't see many opting in. Plus my understanding is a similar figure could be required next year too.

Sorry not my perception. No engagement by WS unless you include a reply from Sally to an email I sent that asked questions, made comments and suggestions re membership categories.

Should not be too difficult, given details of those members plus the rules for the junior steel i could prepare a spread sheet provided i can do it home. Based in Deepest South Lanarkshire. Issue maybe releasing that data to me

I agree fan model is not working but the misinformation coming from the WS for years now would have you believe it is.

We can all draw our own conclusions from this result. The information that has come to light since Investment subject was raised suggests to me that the WS has been badly mis managed in recent past.. Over the years now we have been told we have somewhere up to the 3800 members currently. The 700 supposedly Junior steel I shall ignore since I do not know the rules pertaining to them. That leaves 3100 entitled to vote of which 1660 are NOT contributing and may not have for 10 years or so. How many of the 642 voting to allow the WS percentage to be below 50% are in that category. After all if they have no interest in supporting the WS financially what do they care where the investment comes from. I wont make any comment on members who are no longer living still being included in the 3800 total.

Just as an aside. Interesting to see the Hibs Investment. Foley invests £6m, gets 25% share, Gordon family was 67% now 60%. Assume Fans share was 17.5% now I guess 15%. This kind a deal I cold live with if the WS Board is unsuccessful.

Thanks Speedie85. That certainly takes the pressure off me to release the Information I have gained. Some other points. The average contribution of the 1500 Pledges is £10 £15000 pm £180000 pa. To meet the £500k extra (I think quoted) the average monthly contribution made by the 1500 would need to be £40 This would take the annual income from the 180000 to 720000. I would maintain that is not feasible. The reasons given for the 1600 non paying is death, just stopped paying for whatever reason. former players that have moved on. In my opinion these categories should be removed from the roll of Members. Again in my opinion I take the view that telling members and the outside world that we publish levels that include these categories is verging on immoral. Also included are members who paid £300 lump sum back in 2012 ? and have not paid since, Junior members now aged 16+ and honorary members. Resolving these categories may be more difficult but has to be tackled. Replacing the 1600 non payers with monthly payers would mean the average contribution requires to be £20. Might just be feasible but I don't under estimate the effort needed. Curious how you get honorary membership. The Club have said that they have approached the non payers to re-commence contributions. Further note WS AGM is planned for latest June this year All adults aged 16 and over are eligible to vote.

What position do you think it will play tonight ?.