Kmcalpin

We simply don't know, and I'm not sure if we ever will. What we do know is that there's been a total disconnect between the Society Board and the Executive Board thats been embarassing and totally avoidable. Probably faults, to varying degrees, on both sides. I'm not going to judge anyone until we know the facts, and we probably never will. As I wrote above though, the Tom Feeley/Douglas Dickie situation does need clarifying.

Transfer window now open.

I was thinking more in terms of the Society having learnt lessons, but of course you're right. I'm much less hopeful of the Chairman having learnt his lesson about bringing colleagues, the Society, and we the fans on board. The Society must take a more active and direct role in negotiations, although I don't know quite how that will pan out with Tom Feeley and Douglas Dickie still on the EB. With regard to the latter 2 EB directors, their positions must be clarified asap.

I'm virtually certain that Douglas Dickie and Tom Feeley were Society directors before joining the Executive Board. They were not elected to the latter in their own right. They sit/sat on the EB as representatives of the Society.

Now that is good news. I quite appreciate that matters are moving at speed and so we do need regular, if not frequent, updates. I've no idea whatever, what this update will address but I do hope that the Society, as the major shareholder, is onside with it. Have lessons been learned?

Yes, they are in slightly different positions. That said, as with most things in life, there's a middle line to be trod. I certainly don't expect the club or the Society to start chatting away about every detailed aspect of the issue, on social media, but they could answer basic factual questions or correct inaccuracies for example, or provide updates. On a different point made by some others both here and on P & B, many fans, including me, don't understand all the technicalities. That might well, unfortunately, be reflected in the final vote. It would be great if some uninvolved honest broker could give their objective opinion on the offer, as it currently stands. That would cut out the rhetoric and emotion from the discussion and help us to understand the competing arguments. .

A final avian tweet from me. I'm surprised that no-one has yet posted it. Life is a roller coaster for Well fans.

My question to the Society has been answered this morning so the quick reply is much appreciated. However, I was told that the Society as an entity can't speak on behalf of individual board members and any personal views they may have, outwith the position that was reached collectively. The statement released on Monday was constructed with input from the entire Society Board, regardless of whether they were supportive of the investment proposal or not. So, in short, we still don't know why 3 members voted for acceptance of EB's proposal. Just to emphasise I wasn't looking for personal details or a detailed account of who said what; just a summary, of the minority view.

A few of us warned of this very situation months ago Allan, especially when the Society held a 2:1 majority on the Executive Board, and it stated that it wasn't actively involved in negotiations. Why not? Its absurd to think that the majority shareholder wasn't actively involved. I've no idea of the reasons for that. I'm encouraged that EB is minded to amend his proposal, although there's a fair way to go before it will be acceptable to me. In these situations I always take the view what can we do to make it work, rather than walking away or outright refusal? EB has been open, on P & B, at least. I'd like to think the Executive Board and Society will be a little more open, although their position is somewhat different. For many, including me, the detailed accounting is above our heads and an idiots guide would be useful. As for the Society Board, its treading a fine line. It has to show unity and a consistent approach, but should never become an echo chamber. Diverse views and frank discussions are vital.

If he does well well, we all all be choughed. If he doesn't there will be some amount of snipeing.

Hope he doesn't prove to be an albatross round our neck. If he does we'll have a genuine grouse.

That's pretty much where I'm at. I'm going to contact the Society board to find out the reasons why the 3 members voted to accept the deal. There must be some logic behind their views. I only want their collective reasons behind their vote no more. They're all Well fans as you say. No recriminations and no witchhunt. We may have different views within the support and thats only natural. As Mintymac suggests we now need to show some unity.

I think Spiderpig has raised broadly similar concerns and there may be some justification for that. The Society does need a broad mix of expertise and skills. As I said, the the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We'll know more when the Society publishes its proposal. We need to give it a chance.

Isn't that, in many ways an alternative "investment" plan to Erik Barmack's? Granted its a very different model.

Red lights began to flash for me some months ago, when the Society released a statement saying that it wasn't actively engaged in negotiations. I thought at the time "Why not, you should be as you are the club's major shareholder". It would now seem that lines of communication were not what they could have been with Erik Barmack. Irrespective of how its done, I think there's mileage in continuing negotiations, taking into account major concerns we have.

It's not unreasonable to assume that an alternative plan to "outside" investment is "internal" investment- no? The source of any confusion. As I understand it from comments by Derek Weir and Jim McMahon the aim of the former is to keep the club competitive at its currently broad level. The aim of the latter is somewhat narrower by aiming to build up a rainy day fund. Therefore the two are not mutually exclusive in theory. Some clarity for the benefit of members to correct any misunderstandings and temper expectations would be useful at this stage.

I quite get the different remits of the Club and Society; so no argument from me whatever on that front. I'm quite clear about that. However, until a few minutes ago, I would have said that despite that theoretical separation of roles, the Society was not following that in practice, as it was indeed working on an alternative investment proposal, rightly or wrongly. However Steelboy has now placed extremely serious doubt in my mind by saying that my understanding simply wasn't accurate and that the Society has never been doing that. Its only ever been working on a strategic plan for the Society. Big Wispy Flossy has just confirmed that. In short there is no emerging alternative to the current external investment plan, except the status quo. My thoughts align with Wellgirl and I suspect also with a significant proportion of our fanbase which would also seem to be confused as to what exactly the Society Board is working up. She rightly quotes the BBC "An alternative plan to outside investment is how the BBC reported it in February." So, there is some logical basis for our confusion.

The matter of the smaller private shareholders is one that has been largely overlooked in the past day or so. They/we make up about 28% of the total shareholding. From memory, there is one "large" shareholder, whose name hasn't cropped up on these boards, with several "medium" sized ones. As you say shareholdings did become more concentrated as people died off. But, against that the more recent Society sale did increase the number of small shareholders. Other things being equal, existing small shareholders would have the right to increase their holding, under the Executive Board's favoured plan. As someone else rightly posted on social media, some small shareholders could sell/give some of their their shares to the Society, although the club directors would have the right to block any such transaction (rarely if ever exercised) if it was deemed to be not in the best interests of the club (or something like that; I don't know the exact wording). Just another thought to toss into the bubbling soup pot.

Time will tell Allan. The proof of the pudding and all that. I agree 100% that raffles and bucket collections won't cut it. Big thinking is required.

Whether it is or it isn't their responsibility, they are actively doing this and have publicly said so. On that basis, expectations will have to be met Yes it does.

It is and the pressure is now on the Society board to produce and publish an alternative investment plan. Its not unreasonable for members to expect this by 1 July.

Does it matter? We must avoid getting involved in witchhunts. I'll be emailing the Society to ask for the reasoning behind the 3 board members' vote. I have no wish to know their identity. I simply want to understand their thinking. We know the reasoning behind the other 6, I just want to know theirs to inform my thinking.

They might well have been, but surely they kept other Society board members informed? Given the Society's public response, you'd think Messrs Dickie and Feeley were given other board members' responses to feed back into the official negotiations no? How did the Society board let things go this far if they were totally opposed to the details we've been given? It doesn't make sense.

Where did you see this?

One issue that's baffling me, is the substantial reference to the Society in the external proposal. Surely the Society would have been actively involved in discussing this, despite previous comments to the contrary?