Kmcalpin

You've hit the nail on the head Allan. That would be a win win situation. Time will tell if its achievable. We'll be in a better position once we see the Society's new strategic plan. Either that or a philanthropic white knight or lady and I can't see any riding towards us even with my telescope.

IF that were to be the case, presumably if I were to offer to gift or donate even a modest amount of privately held shares, to take its holding even very slightly over the 50.1% then that would be blocked by the Executive Board?

After a lot of thought, and wading through pages of questions and answers and jargon and other technical stuff that i don't fully understand, I'm of the opinion that this deal isn't for me. The latest iteration of the deal doesn't change much in my view. That said, I'm onboard with the reason for considering deal (but not this particular deal). Our club cannot stand still it has to move on just as the Scottish footballing world is moving on. Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should be trying to emulate the city clubs, such as Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts; thats a pipedream. We have to adapt and update our business model just to retain our current status in the pecking order. Thats not to say that it hasn't been working. It has, but its faced increasing challenges. We'll always be a selling club fact. Its becoming increasingly difficult to retain budding young players from our Academy. In time that impacts on transfer fees received. Our Academy infrastructure needs updated to help attract and retain young talent as they eye better competing facilities elsewhere. Fir Park is ageing, and sentiment won't pay the maintenance bills. At a micro scale, the POD Stand badly needs upgrading and that won't come cheap. Its facilities are poor by today's standards. At a macro scale, we may one day need to move away from Fir Park. These are just examples as to why the status quo isn't an option. That then leaves us with the Society. Historically, and even recently it has adopted a laissez faire/hands off approach to the club's overall management. Even of late, it has taken a back seat to all the online shenanigans and online debate (I'm not for a minute suggesting that it should have been answering every post or tweet). It should have though, for example, issued a simple but short reply to the latest Barmack amendment. That passive approach can't continue. Its the club's main shareholder and owner and is being sidelined! It has to be more proactive and assertive. That is why its much awaited Strategic Plan has to deliver a bold, realistic but ultimately safer alternative to the Wild Sheep proposal. It also has to launch this well before the vote opens on 1 July to allow members time to digest the details, submit questions, and compare it to the Barmack scheme ( I do appreciate that hard work is going on behind the scenes). Edit. Just after I posted, I received the Society's response. Fair enough. Its embarrassing though that the Society has had to engage lawyers to pore over the latest proposal. Possibly different legal opinion to that engaged the Executive Board! You couldn't make it up.

So, what you're saying is that private shareholders could donate some or all of their shares to the Society?

It's been mentioned, rightly, that private shareholders could sell some or all of their shares to Erik Barmack or his associates. However, its also quite possible that they could sell or donate some or all their shares to the Society.

So you think the Club Board will listen to the fans? Little evidence of that currently. I suspect SK or Nick Dawes will have advised the directors of his market value.

That's what I'm assuming, although I'm not in the know. After my post earlier in the week, signings have been coming thick and fast. We're now very well stocked in midfield pehaps succession planning if Miller moves on. However, I reckon we're still short of a goalie, left back and a centre half. Maybe still one short up front if the Bair departs. English loan market won't come alive until August. Will Ewan Wilson make the step up this year?

On odd statement by the club. It didn't say anything new or reference any amended proposal, but rather explained a few aspects in more detail. I do accept though some of the financial "facts", such as the effect of freezing season ticket prices. There's always a danger with these matters that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. What strikes me though is the continuing disconnect between the 2 boards. In the reference to EB numbers surely it's up to the Society board to exert its will? Some very good work and excellent posts on P & B but I'm concerned by some posters' attitude towards those who support the Barmack's proposal. Everyone is entitled to their view which I might not agree with, but we shouldn't ridicule them.

On the money as always OTF.

Have I missed something or did Erik Barmack not suggest that he might tweak his proposal?

Its a wee bit concerning once again that we started pre season yesterday with so many squad vacancies and our our main striker away on international duty. Only 1 senior goalie, only 1 senior striker and no left back. Of course, its quite possible that we have players on trial or sigend but not yet announced. Concerning, but no reason whatever to panic. SK did say that he wanted to get business done early this year, but thats easier said than done. Still it does hamper our league cup preparation.

We're a bit short of goalies starting off pre season today. Maybe we have a trialist or someone lined up?

Our choice of strikers for the opening fixture(s) could be somewhat limited, as things stand, if the Bair is afforded a wee well deserved break after international duty.

I think what the past few days have highlighted is that there are major issues with the Executive Board (name should be changed to Club Board) and the Society Board. Although we saw positive change last year to the WS Board, more fresh blood is now required due to resignations. The make up of the Executive Board also needs to be examined as a matter of urgency. We need a settled, forward looklng leadership. I believe there have been some interested local parties who approached the club to invest in the recent past. Without knowing the details, perhaps this avenue could be looked at again? The bottom line is that the WS needs to take control of the Executive Board, being the major shareholder. As far as external investment goes, we require it, not to plug financial holes or to try to improve our status in Scottish football but to consolidate our position, both on but also off the field. That investment has to be right for us though. MFC is our club. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing what this week brings both on and especially off the field.

In the past few years, shares have privately changed hands for about £10 each.

As a very rough benchmark, what price did the Society sell shares at to members a few years ago?

From what I can gather, he is primarily a right back, but can play other right side of a back 3 or as a defensive midfielder. He's not spectacular, but solid and reliable. Never an 8 but never a 4. That's how he's been labelled.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in this post, David, I think this statement is somewhat arrogant and patronising. I'm old enough and ugly enough to have been there and done this myself, to my regret. You might disagree with fellow Well fans as I sometimes do, but please don't denigrate them. Some fans may have opposite, but perfectly legitimate and sincerely held, views to you.

Well said ☹️.

You're not the only one San. 🤣

Thanks for this Derek. A welcome update. Irrespective of the details its encouraging that there seems to be a willingness to talk and negotiate about external investment generally. The recent debate has been a bit polarised and your tone may just help to heal some rifts. We don't want a divided support.

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.