StAndrew7
-
Posts
1,094 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by StAndrew7
-
-
2 hours ago, Well Well said:
So you don't actually know
This is a quote from me and others, based on my report back on what was said the AGM. Jim McMahon said that any new investments will be made by the issuing of new shares not the purchase of existing ones.
Now, that may well change based on the discussions but that's as good a source as we have right now.
@steelboy is correct in what he's saying.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, wunderwell said:
Two cup finals and the sale of David Turnbull to thank.
Neither of those events look likely soon unless they can convince Lennon to sign an extended contract.He did.
He's here until the summer or 2026, most likely to be sold next January or the summer of 2025 I would imagine.
-
18 minutes ago, wunderwell said:
I agree, if it's truly fan ownership and the Well Society has controlling interest. (Which is now ceased at Companies House, anyone else notice that?)
Then we should appoint the board. Not 2/5 board members.
The fan ownership simply isn't real. It's a funding mechanism for the club with no real say.The Companies House thing happens every year I think, if you look back at previous accounting periods. There's nothing out of the ordinary there.
I suspect this year it will also be dependent on the changes to the board structure agreed at the AGM.
And agreed, the WS is essentially a piggy bank right now. Far removed from what it was initially set up to be. I believe that shift was part of the deal with Les; although as I'm not a member I can't confirm if that was ever voted on?
-
12 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:
I dont know anything for a fact.
Only the investor and the club know what the deal is (or should).
But some of our fans seem to think that outside investment is some sort of no risk Nirvana where we never have to pay any money back and we can instantly spend more money on players.
Given how negative many are being about fan ownership, I think its important that someone highlights the risks on the other side of the fence.
I do want to re-iterate though, that I wont make my own mind up one way or the other until I see the detail of the deal.
This is it exactly for me. The club has always (since administration etc. anyway) operated under a model where we need to sell a player every other year to keep the books balanced, or sell a Turnbull every three or so.
The WS' funds essentially became a way for the club to keep things balanced in leaner times after Les came in, and that's absolutely worked and kept the club afloat.
I would argue that's not necessarily true fan ownership, which is why I'm intrigued to see what the new WS board have to offer in terms of growing that to something even more meaningful.
However, there's also no reason that the work they're doing can't be done alongside an investor who wants to work with the WS to do that, using their own business experience and skills to supplement what is already there.
My line in the sand for all of this has always been 51/49 ownership in favour of the fans. If it goes beyond that (even if it takes years, or is performance based etc.) it's a no from me.
Also, there is far, far more to any potential takeover than can be acutely summarised on a forum like this. Like I'm enjoying the debate and discussion but we also need to know a significant amount of what we're reading here and in the press is speculation.
e.g. The actual, financial valuation of the club and its assets (rather than the emotional one we as fans put on it) calculated by forensic accountants/finance specialists and then adding in any potential clauses the WS want around ensuring that if they lost majority ownership, there is first refusal on the investor's shares if/when they choose to go or sell up.
This is all, of course, dependent on it getting to the stage of there being an actual offer for the club that the Exec Board deems worth considering. Exclusivity of negotiations doesn't guarantee that will happen.
One (final, I promise) point; none of the potential investors we have attracted so far are offering to put "transformational" amounts of money into the club. So whatever happens in that regard, I believe the WS will have to continue in some capacity to support the club in leaner times.
Like you said @joewarkfanclub we need to be very careful when coming to a decision. Personally, I think there is a model where the WS and any investor(s) could work together (whilst the WS/fans retains majority ownership under whatever structure is negotiated) to build the former and help the latter get a return on their investment, leaving the club in a stronger position than it was. There is nuance to that which will take time to work out, if it is indeed an option, but the devil, as always, will be in the detail.
-
2
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, wellfan said:
https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/04/16/500-and-not-out/
New contract announcement soon?
The chat I've heard is he's happy to stay and has a deal essentially agreed but not until he knows we're staying in the Premiership.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, steelboy said:
Where was this?
From what I can remember, it was part of this interview Derek Weir gave. I don't have time to find the right section though.
-
1 minute ago, steelboy said:
Well for a start being "an ex-VP of Netflix" means fuck all to me.
I had never heard of this guy until last week so i'm obviously going to be sceptical. I'll take the word of long time Motherwell fans ahead of some Californian Tech guy, that's just sensible.
And that's your prerogative, but don't criticise others because they chose to question what, in their eyes, is a poorly constructed article written by a Motherwell fan because it's written by a Motherwell fan.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, steelboy said:
His father is no longer involved with the Well Society board and neither is Gavin McCafferty so neither of the two of them aren't bound by anything.
This is just standard journalism. It's telling us we're going to be asked to give up majority control, that Douglas Dickie is the one driving it (big surprise there) and that the Society has roughly £700,000 in the bank. It's a good article.
No, but if someone has told them the details of the deal, they have. So he is potentially accepting information from a commercially sensitive negotiation which is under exclusivity and I would imagine non-disclosure agreements.
And yes. It's telling us those things. Without anything to back up the first point, stating the obvious in the second and telling us something else we already knew. Pulitzer prize stuff, this.
-
4 minutes ago, steelboy said:
It's being published by a reputable journalist who is a huge Motherwell fan. Why not take him at his word?
Because that's not how journalism is supposed to work? That article is pure speculation with quotes from an interview he didn't conduct.
He published nonsense about the accounts/Kilmarnock earlier in the year and his points were very quickly shot down by the Club/Weir in an interview in January. If anything I'm questioning his motives more because he's a Motherwell fan, rather than taking him at his word.
Also, Barmack is an ex-VP of Netflix and has actually gone on the record about things, why not take him at his word?
Edit: for the record, if it does turn out he's after majority ownership, he can get in the sea. But we haven't had that "confirmed" by any means.
-
25 minutes ago, steelboy said:
Journalist Gavin McCafferty who's father was the first Well Society chairman confirming that we will be asked to give up majority control.
There is literally nothing in that article that backs that up, other than the opening paragraph and it saying the WS voted it would consider it.
I would hardly say that it's "confirmed" because of who his dad is/was. Because if that is the reason he's in the know, that's undermining the potential outcome of an ongoing commercial/financial negotiation and would be incredibly unprofessional from both of them.
But y'know, it pushes an agenda.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, santheman said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68790801
An insight to our potential investor
I said this over on P&B as well; it absolutely comes across as him "saying the right things" at this early a stage of negotiations and engagement but he is saying the right things. Definitely interesting times ahead.
-
4 minutes ago, El Grew said:
Is there something wrong with the club’s website? No mention of the appointment there.
The link to the club website is in the first post?
-
3 minutes ago, wellfan said:
Introducing fallacies will always be a feature of fan forums, whether deliberate or otherwise, particularly in the face of poor comms.
Just because it's always been a feature doesn't mean it should be accepted or not challenged when there is evidence to the contrary.
-
14 minutes ago, wellfan said:
I'm not sure any deliberate lying is happening or is being suggested to have happened. However, given the recent mistakes made and embarrassing failures in basic communications on big issues, you can see why fans will and do speculate on what the hell is and has been going on.
Clear and consistent communication is required to build trust between a football club and its supporters, which generally prevents speculation and accusation. I think we could all agree that both the club and society (the latter to a lesser degree now that it has new board members) have been crap at comms for a while now.
I'm not disputing that re: poor communication in the past and have said the same in other posts.
My point is, and will continue to be, that there are what I believe to be fallacies (I concede that lying might have been the wrong word to use in my post) being posted on here without any evidence, when, in this instance, we have evidence of (decent, not brilliant) communication to the contrary directly from both the Club and Society.
If any evidence can be produced to contradict what I and others heard from our Chairman, CEO and club directors at the AGM and have also heard and read from Well Society Board members in person and on this forum, I'd be happy to change my position.
-
4 hours ago, steelboy said:
So when are we getting a new CEO?
At the appropriate time based on negotiations regarding investment in the club, as reported by both the Club and Society boards at and after the AGM. I'm not arguing the point that appointment of CEO has been put on hold; I'm contesting your suggestion that nothing has happened since Christmas.
2 minutes ago, steelboy said:There was talking of American investors in January so I believe that they were interviewing candidates in February as much as I believe Kettlewell's contract was extended last summer.
So you're saying that both the Club and Well Society boards are lying to the fans about it, then? Evidence, please.
-
On 3/16/2024 at 5:34 PM, steelboy said:
They haven't been looking for a CEO at all since well before Christmas.
Apart from the interviews that took place in February as discussed at the AGM, aye? Shut yer hole.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, weeyin said:
We don't usually injure our players in training until the day before a match.
Don't forget that we report it the day after as well. Occasionally with a hospital bed selfie.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mad Dog said:
No idea how he got away with that one. No VAR required.
No VAR in the Championship, that's how. 😅
-
55 minutes ago, Mad Dog said:
That was the clip that stood out for me too. Lundstram is a big unit himself and a strong, honest player so to see Bair bouncing him was great.
No chance Bair has any Scottish blood is there?
Considering he's already been capped by and scored for Canada, sadly not.
-
I for one am absolutely loving the seethe from Rangers fans this morning over Casey's tackle.
Their wee boy got hurt by that big bad man and and and and that's just not fair.
Also, the fact they are conveniently ignoring the fact that McCausland got injured because he shat out the tackle and left his leg straight (which also planted high on Casey's leg 🙄🙃)... makes it all the more wonderful. 😁
-
1 hour ago, wellgirl said:
Surely though the percentage given in the email was of the people eligible to vote. The junior members will have been taken out of the equation before that percentage was calculated.
I think the point is that we don't know and it'd be good to get clarity on that. Even if it is something that can be assumed as being the case, if it's not confirmed, or states "of those eligible to vote" in the e-mail, it's not clear.
I haven't got the e-mail as I'm not in the WS, so if anyone can confirm the wording that'd be ideal.
-
1 minute ago, wellfan said:
Linking to what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, I think it would be important to understand what percentage of the 3800 members are eligible/able to vote before the true turnout figure is understood/calculated following any future binding vote.
Aye, fair point. If 1,000 members weren't able to vote because they're junior members, that does change things somewhat.
-
1 hour ago, wellgirl said:
People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid.
I get that, but my point isn't about the vote that's just happened. That is done and dusted and valid and it should be honoured.
My point is about my concerns with any future vote regarding the future of the club and any sale to an outside investor; if less than 50% of the Well Society vote in any poll regarding the sale of shares, or purchase of or whatever, does that in any way constitute a majority of the membership?
Would the WS Board then need to put into action the results of a vote which regards anything from the sale of the club, sale of some of the WS stake, or agreeing to outside investment and does that, in corporate law/takeover requirements, constitute a valid vote to support any legal requirements to be able to vote as a block of 72% of the club.
Sorry that's a bit of a word salad but I'm typing quickly before having to jump into a meeting.
-
Just now, wellfan said:
Some probably don't, but this indicative vote may well awaken others and increase the turnout in the event of any binding vote.
Aye, that's what I was hoping for/mentioned later in my post. I really hope it does. Like, how can the WS Board vote its 72% block of shares with less than 50% of the membership voting? That's not a realistic majority for something as crucial as the sale of the club.
-
1
-
New Investment Options
in Club Chat
Posted
Nope, direct from the AGM in this instance.