David
-
Posts
6,370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
94
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by David
-
-
Just now, Mccus28 said:
As Ive stated before and will again, I don't think either party involved here has any great ideas or shown they can drive the club forward and I personally think that both must do better with their proposals and hopefully they can find some common ground.
Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment.
Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder."
According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares.
However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business.
More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments.
This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived.
If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured.
So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society.
-
3
-
-
32 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:
Firstly, I don't think EB or the WS have convinced me with their proposals.
But to suggest that your fellow supporter is stupid if they have a different opinion on the deal is quite cringeworthy and says more about you.
EB has put a proposal on the table as have the WS, neither of which have blown me away.
I think the WS are well intentioned but i also dont think EB is sitting in a swivel chair stroking his cat pondering how he will take over the world with the vast sums of money he will make from the demise of Motherwell FC. I believe he is also well intentioned and not the villain some of you are trying to suggest he is.
Lets hope all can find some common ground and not be millitant toward people trying to assist in driving Motherwell forward whoever it is, EB or the WS.
Was that directed at me?
If so, from everything I’ve shared (and there's been a lot!), that's your takeaway? No concerns about the lack of clarity on penalties for missing those payments (hint: it will happen if this deal goes through. The Well Society simply won't get the support it needs to meet those figures).
And sorry, but I'll be as vocal as needed when I believe someone is trying to push a deal that benefits them at the expense of our stadium and potentially puts it at risk. That might not concern you much, but it certainly concerns me.
-
3
-
1
-
-
I'm not going to even comment on the vast majority of the Wild Sheep sports proposal, simply because what they're proposing isn't anything of a surprise really. It's not groundbreaking stuff. And it isn't the real reason behind their proposal. All the talk of passion for the club, and so on? A front. Anyone can see that. Their plan for the club is so bad that it doesn't take a business mastermind to see that very little thought has went into it.
What is important, and should be highlighted is the wording used in the small print (isn't that always the case in matters such as these?)
Let's look at that:
"And for the purposes of clarity, we are not looking to “take over” the Club by purchasing additional shares beyond the shares outlined in our proposed deal. We are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder."
Erik Barmack’s recent statement indicates that he and his wife, Courtney, have no plans to purchase additional shares directly. However, this doesn’t rule out the possibility of acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party. This happens all the time in business. Such indirect methods could still allow them to gain control or influence, effectively sidestepping the intended minority shareholder status.
Something else in the document regarding the financial contribution of the Well society:
"Should TWS not be able to sustain these payments, our firm belief is that this should not be a “backdoor” to further ownership for any of the minority owners. Possible remedies could include extending the term, or some further reduction in debt. Our thinking is that we would need to discuss the most practical solution with TWS that maintains their majority ownership and doesn’t change the ownership structure of Fir Park."
"Some further reduction in debt." I can't highlight that point enough. The debt in question is secured against the stadium, and more importantly the ground on which the stadium sits.
There is no "or" about it, that's what will be pursued when the Society cannot make those payments.
I refer everyone back to this point I made earlier:
Impact on Existing Loan:
What Could Happen: The £868,000 loan from the Society to the club could be affected. Well, the £434,000 that would remain after 50% of the original amount is converted into shares to help the Well Society maintain a 50.1% majority shareholding in a football club that it would have previously held over 70% in.
How It Works:
- Debt Forgiveness Negotiation: If the Society fails to meet its financial commitments, the club could negotiate to have the loan forgiven in exchange for the Society being forgiven for not making its required payments.
It should be mentioned at this point that the Well Society loan is currently secured against the stadium. And more importantly, the ground it sits on.
All of a sudden that "clean balance sheet" looks really attractive. Why? For the following reasons:
Release of Security:
- What Happens: If the loan is forgiven, the security (the stadium) associated with the loan would be released. This means the stadium would no longer be collateral for the debt since the debt itself would be eliminated.
- Implication: Without the loan, the club would own the stadium free and clear of that specific debt obligation.
Potential Increased Control for Wild Sheep Sports:
- Scenario: If Wild Sheep Sports becomes the majority shareholder, and the loan is forgiven, they could have increased control over the club’s assets, including the stadium.
- Implication: WSS, as the majority shareholder, would have significant influence over decisions regarding the stadium, including the possibility of selling it or remortgaging it to gain finance based against it.
So, yeah. That's the end game. A vote for this proposal is a vote to potentially rob your kids and grandkids of a football club to call their own in the future. All because some small-time investor waved a few quid in front of us.
-
2
-
One thing that is absolutely astounding about all of this is that the Heads of Terms mention:
"The WS commitment is £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three" yet nothing else is clarified.
Here's my question - What happens if the Well Society can't make that commitment at any point? There has to be repercussions? Otherwise, why even quote a number?
Now, in the absence of any information on the penalties for missed payments, despite me asking Erik outright and him providing a vague answer about how penalties aren't included in Heads of Terms, let's have a look at some of the penalties I've seen enacted in the past, and how they could apply to the Well Society:
Equity Dilution:
- What Could Happen: The Well Society’s ownership stake in the club could be reduced.
- How It Works: If the Society misses a payment, more shares could be issued to Wild Sheep Sports (WSS), decreasing the Society’s ownership percentage (in fairness, Erik says this shouldn't be the case, but you'll note the use of the word "shouldn't" rather than "wouldn't". Besides, I don't think a claim made on a football forum would stand up in court if he decided to enact this option.
Financial Penalties:
- What Could Happen: The Society might have to pay additional fees or interest.
- How It Works: The agreement could include a clause that charges interest or fixed penalties for missed payments, increasing the amount the Society owes.
Reduction of Benefits:
- What Could Happen: The Society could lose certain privileges.
- How It Works: Benefits like voting rights on certain issues or access to club facilities might be reduced or suspended until the missed payments are made.
Acceleration Clause:
- What Could Happen: The Society could be required to pay the remaining balance immediately.
- How It Works: Missing one payment could trigger a requirement to pay all remaining committed funds upfront.
Loss of Buyback Option:
- What Could Happen: The Society could lose the option to buy back shares.
- How It Works: If the Society fails to meet financial commitments, they might forfeit the option to buy back shares from WSS.
Or, it could even be the following, which is the one I'm particularly concerned about outside of the first option:
Impact on Existing Loan:
What Could Happen: The £868,000 loan from the Society to the club could be affected. Well, the £434,000 that would remain after 50% of the original amount is converted into shares to help the Well Society maintain a 50.1% majority shareholding in a football club that it would have previously held over 70% in.
How It Works:
- Debt Forgiveness Negotiation: If the Society fails to meet its financial commitments, the club could negotiate to have the loan forgiven in exchange for the Society being forgiven for not making its required payments.
It should be mentioned at this point that the Well Society loan is currently secured against the stadium. And more importantly, the ground it sits on.
All of a sudden that "clean balance sheet" looks really attractive. Why? For the following reasons:
Release of Security:
- What Happens: If the loan is forgiven, the security (the stadium) associated with the loan would be released. This means the stadium would no longer be collateral for the debt since the debt itself would be eliminated.
- Implication: Without the loan, the club would own the stadium free and clear of that specific debt obligation.
Potential Increased Control for Wild Sheep Sports:
- Scenario: If Wild Sheep Sports becomes the majority shareholder, and the loan is forgiven, they could have increased control over the club’s assets, including the stadium.
- Implication: WSS, as the majority shareholder, would have significant influence over decisions regarding the stadium, including the possibility of selling it.
Now, it might be the case that none of the above would apply.
Or, indeed, any or a combination of the above could apply. We don't know, because no one is telling us. All we know is that Wild Sheep Sports is extremely eager to eliminate the loan the club has from the Well Society. As soon as a vote to approve Barmack's offer happens the loan is reduced immediately by 50%. Which leaves only 50% to get out the way.
Now, I could be wrong. I just wonder if the information on those penalties will be provided in good time for the membership to scrutinise before voting?
-
12 minutes ago, santheman said:
Aye
Some people need to wake up to the fact that everything in this proposal is loaded in his favour.
Yet there's still some who are saying "but it's money we wouldn't otherwise have" without realising the ramifications or totally dismissing what the WS have published.
If I go by my circle of friends who are mostly WS members and who I gauge as a typical cross selection of ages and abilities then I think this will get kicked into touch.
I'm fairly sure it will get kicked into touch, but what has to be highlighted is how absolutely ludicrous this whole process has been. I've never seen anything like it in the business world.
-
7 minutes ago, santheman said:
If EB's proposal wins then we're into different territory altogether and I fear for the survival of the WS in its present form and can see a lot of acrimony surfacing from within the club and the fans.
I've noticed that many people are saying that if Barmack wins the vote, they will cancel their contributions to the Society. They feel that their funds would essentially be used to finance the day-to-day running of the club under the control of a millionaire American chairman. I understand their perspective and will likely do the same.
However, I'm not sure that would disappoint Erik too much, despite what he says.
There's the £1.35 million commitment from the Society built into his plan for a reason. I personally believe that much of it is based on him guessing the Society won't be able to meet those numbers, which would effectively cause some sort of forfeit accompanied by penalties.
I've asked numerous times what those penalties will be, but have received no concrete answers.
I also find his desire to remove the loan that is, I believe, secured against the stadium very interesting. Would I be surprised if the money to cover any shortfall in Society contributions over the six years is claimed via the loan being waived? I would not.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Tamwell said:
That “we’ve already been doing some of this” has really annoyed me.
In much the same way as Barmack will undoubtedly now start talking about some of "his plans" which will be very similar to the plans in the Well Society document.
Basically, he had nothing to offer before. But has waited to see what the Society offers so he can nab some of the ideas from it and claim "this is what I actually meant when I was typing a lot but saying nothing on P&B."
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Peter Millar said:
I didn’t ask for examples I think you might have provided them for someone else. I just commented on them. I think they can work too but just not at a level that can bring investment to the club that will provide meaningful sustainable growth.
I believe they can. It's not just the investment itself, it's what the strategic aspect can provide.
For example, the service provided by the strategic investor can potentially save us money in areas we're already spending in, and it can provide results that allow us to capitalise financially further down the line. Those investors become contacts for other investments and so on.
What I am virtually certain of, is that all of the information in the proposal document will more than allow the club to run sustainably, in profit, and without having to forfeit fan ownership.
The previous Society board, perhaps well-intentioned, did not even scratch the surface as far as what can be done with our club model. Not even close.
What I would be interested in, is why people are not placing as much scrutiny on Barmack's offer? He has rocked up, offered £300k a year for almost half the club, the chairmanship, seats on the board, and with a demand that the Well Society find an extra £200k per year just to finance the club while he basically runs it.
And his ideas?
An "of the shelf" AI software that can be implemented in a few weeks and costs in the low five figures in USD. The idea of taking one of our home games against one of the Old Firm to Wembley Stadium. He was also "incredulous" that the chairman wouldn't have a say in which players the club signs, and believes it would be within his remit to ask the club to sign and play two Latin American players simply because he has a contact that has a tequila company and would maybe want to sponsor us.
Let's be honest, if the Society had included anything like those above in their proposal, they'd have been eaten alive by the support, and by you.
Yet, Barmack gets a pass. why is that?
-
1 minute ago, Peter Millar said:
For the amounts quoted in the post?
Those are examples. You wanted examples, I provided examples. I'm not sitting here right now speaking to strategic investors in the club and publishing real-time information.
Those examples show how the system works. And like I said, it does work.
-
5 minutes ago, Peter Millar said:
I’d be surprised if this level of investment would be available. There are already sophisticated examples of both these systems on the market sold globally that have cost a fortune to develop. It’s difficult to see why they would pay Motherwell to use them. I’m not sure they would go for that level of revenue split either.
It's available. I know that for a fact.
EDIT: Those examples are really simple in their approach, which is why I chose them. They're easy to understand, so you can get an idea of how it would work.
And it does work.
-
40 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said:
I’m failing to see why someone would invest to get a “share of the revenue generated”. What does that even mean.
Example 1: Technology Firm - Advanced Scouting Software
Investor: Tech Firm Specialising in Player Scouting Software
Investment: £50,000 per annum over three years, plus free software for the club
Implementation:
- The tech firm provides advanced scouting software.
- Software is integrated into the club’s scouting operations.
- Training provided for scouts and coaches to utilise the software effectively.
Outcome and Benefits:
For Motherwell FC:
- Improved player recruitment based on data-driven insights.
- Potential to secure promising player signings leading to better team performance.
- Savings on scouting costs due to the efficiency of the software.
For the Tech Firm:
- A compelling case study demonstrating the effectiveness of their software in a professional football setting, allowing them to then sell their software to other football clubs as an alternative to current scouting software.
- Enhanced visibility and credibility in the sports technology market.
Example 2: Health Tech Company - Injury Prevention Technology
Investor: Health Tech Company Offering Wearable Devices for Injury Prevention
Investment: £30,000 per annum over five years, plus provision of wearable devices for the team
Implementation:
- Deploy wearable devices during training sessions and matches to collect data and analyze injury risks.
- Tailor training programs based on insights to reduce injuries and improve player health.
Outcome and Benefits:
For Motherwell FC:
- Notable decrease in training-related injuries, keeping key players fit and available.
- Improved player performance and longevity.
- Potential cost savings on medical treatments and player rehabilitation.
For the Health Tech Company:
- Revenue Split: 70% of savings from reduced injury costs to Motherwell FC, 30% to the health tech company.
- Valuable data and feedback to refine and enhance their product.
- Strengthened market position with a successful implementation in professional sports.
-
2 hours ago, Mccus28 said:
I understand what your saying but to play devils advocate, EB was ripped to pieces for not going into the minutia of any plans by some on here.
That isn’t quite true. Barmack was criticised heavily for not having any plan at all, and then he didn’t help himself by admitting that he had about 10% of the knowledge needed to create one.
He indicated in various conversations some of his ideas as follows:
- Take one of our home games against either Celtic or Rangers, where we still don’t fill a 13,700-seat stadium, to Wembley Stadium in London.
- Essentially force the manager and recruitment team to sign and play two Latin American players because it could be useful in securing a sponsorship deal with a tequila company.
Aside from that, he suggested implementing an AI system that would take a few weeks to put together and cost about $10,000.
So no, it’s not quite the same. The Well Society has put together a proposal that includes action plans, complete with KPIs and projected ROI, in a business plan that will be available shortly.
Barmack has produced absolutely nothing so far.
2 hours ago, bobbybingo said:The problem I would have is, if anyone asks me to give them a specific example of what the Well Society is proposing, I couldn't - which echoes the answers I get if I ask Erik Barmack's backers for a specific example of his plans.
That being said, it's EB's proposal that people should be voting on, not the Society's.
If someone asks you for a specific example, just tell them about the strategic investment section of the proposal.
The Well Society’s strategic investment plan aims to secure the future of the club by attracting partnerships from companies and individuals who can offer both financial support and specialised expertise. In return, the investors will receive a share of the revenue generated from these projects, creating a mutually beneficial arrangement. This approach ensures the club remains financially robust and operationally advanced without relinquishing any shares or boardroom seats.
By leveraging the skills and resources of strategic investors, the Well Society can implement initiatives such as upgrading training facilities, introducing advanced scouting technologies, and creating immersive media content. These projects will not only provide immediate benefits to the club but also generate ongoing revenue and cost savings. Additionally, investors will gain the opportunity to showcase their products and services in a real-world, high-visibility environment, receive valuable feedback and data for further development, and enjoy the brand association with a historic football club, which provides them with the "test case" needed to sell their services to other clubs and companies. The strategy allows for the club’s continuous improvement and financial stability while preserving the fan ownership model, ensuring the values and traditions of Motherwell are upheld.
25 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said:In my opinion, the only way the WS can generate substantial increased revenue is for investment and not increased members.
investors will want something in return for their investment. What are the WS offering in return? Shares/percentage of the club? Is that not the same as EB is offering right now?
See above.
-
1
-
I've seen a few people on social media claim that they can still vote for Erik's proposal, and that he would be able to work hand in hand with the Society to implement their plan. A "win/win" for all concerned.
It should be pointed out that this isn't the case.
Under Erik's proposal the majority of the Society plan comes undone. it would be unworkable.
-
25 minutes ago, santheman said:
I'm currently having an online spat with someone who still thinks EBs offer should be accepted.
His reasoning is "At least he's put a figure on his investment all the WS have given us is a load of things theyre hoping will happen"
I'm about ready to punch my screen in.
For the record, while the proposal document outlines how the Society intends to raise funds through various revenue channels, it is not as detailed as a business plan, simply because such detail is not typically included in a proposal. Essentially, it is a presentation that charts the way forward.
Key performance indicators (KPIs) and projected return on investment (ROI) for the avenues mentioned by the Society are already established and will be shared in due course. I am confident that these avenues will generate more revenue annually than what Wild Sheep Sports is offering, and without the need to relinquish almost 50% of the club or allow a very influential boardroom presence.
-
2
-
-
It's also important to note that for those who contribute to the Well Society on a monthly basis, and who may have been worried that their money would go directly into the club, the general idea is to maintain the Society's original values, whereby those contributions are still retained for "break glass in emergency" situations.
I mention this because I know it was a concern for a few people.
-
2 hours ago, dennyc said:
I believe the Boards should work in Partnership, with the Exec Board responsible for the day to day running of the Club. They are the Professionals and, in some cases, employed for that purpose. CEO as a prime example. Sadly there has been little evidence of any Partnership in recent times.
For me, what is missing is accountability. The club board for too long has been unaccountable to anyone. They need to be held to account by the Well society board, and the wider membership.
-
2
-
-
He'll probably be on a decent salary and has secured a two-year deal for himself. I would never begrudge a footballer for making a move based on financial reasons. It's a short career, and many factors can derail it, so earn as much as you can while you have the chance.
His playing time will be limited, but if he ever takes the field against us, I'll applaud him until the whistle blows to start the game, then I wish him nothing but the worst for the 90 minutes.
-
10 minutes ago, santheman said:
I only hope what they do eventually publish blows what EB is proposing out of the water.
Can you, or anyone else for that matter, actually document clearly what Erik is proposing? I mean, his actual plans?
That's a serious question. I've asked the man himself and been told that it's unfair to expect a plan with solid deliverables, projected return on investment, and so on.
His reply basically goes along the lines of "vote for me first, then you can see what I end up doing."
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, wellgirl said:
And of course I absolutely appreciate that our cub needs to sell merch to get every penny in.
I understand that we do not receive any funds from merchandise sold at the club unless it reaches a certain threshold, which has not been met in several years.
If true, this arrangement is utterly absurd.
-
35 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:
No criticism of your statement but for me it highlights the fundamental issue we have "all the board have full time jobs" for the WS to operate as it should to ensure true fan ownership the boards full time jobs should be running the WS.
Professional people in place to provide effective and professional governance hopefully the current scenario will be the catalyst for the required changes.
The point I'd make is that the Society board isn't tasked with running the club. That's why we have a Chairman, a CEO, and a club board.
I'd view the Society as a hands-off majority owner. For now, anyway. The people we should be quizzing on the way forward for the club are the Chairman, and the new CEO.
I'd be interested in seeing his plan?
-
44 minutes ago, steelboy said:
So we're now 1 week from the voting opening and we still haven't seen the club's detailed proposal about issuing new shares or any kind of business plan from Erik Barmack and the Well Society haven't announced a single public meeting about the situation.
Farcical.
There's some serious work going on behind the scenes with the Society, trust me. Considering the board all has full-time jobs and lives, the fact they're doing what I've seen thus far is nothing short of amazing.
Anyone who questions their commitment is more than welcome to get in touch and offer to help?
-
32 minutes ago, robsterwood said:
That's the basic principle but it's showing ambition to tempt higher quy players so we should try.
I'm fairly sure that we don't actively try not to sign good players. But, like it not, those factors I mentioned will come into play.
-
As I said earlier in the thread, do those players even want to come to Motherwell? For instance, instead of signing four players at the wage we usually offer for a single player, let's say we actually do consider combining those four salaries to buy one player. Just for arguments sake.
You'll often find that players commanding the equivalent of four players' wages at our level will attract interest from clubs higher up the hierarchy, who see that combined four-player salary as their standard, single-player salary. Consequently, they are likely to offer far more than we can in other aspects besides salary.
In essence, it wouldn't work. It's a very simplistic way of looking at transfer dealings. It’s easy to plan with rough estimates, but the real world is usually far more complicated.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, santheman said:
I don't think it's the responsibilty of the WS to physically scource outside funding but if they're going to reject EBs offer then they at least need to show a way forward and a plan on how to achieve it to counter that offer which is what everyone against EBs proposal is looking for them to provide.
In my opinion, a constructive step would be to consider appointing a Chairman and additional executive board members who can develop a strategy for achieving success without needing to entertain offers from individuals like the Barmacks.
It seems fans have been patient with a Chairman and board that haven't achieved notable results for years. Then suddenly, they endorse a questionable deal from someone who openly admits to lacking football experience and a clear plan.
I'm puzzled why the scrutiny isn't directed towards them instead of the Well Society.
1 hour ago, santheman said:I'm not for a minute expecting them to go knocking on doors but if the changes we want to see in the boardroom came about and the WS became the dominant force then seeking investment would surely be in their remit as Executive Directors.
Why would it though? It seems like it's not within the remit of the current Executive Directors. If it were, they'd have quickly dismissed Barmack as the opportunist and dreamer that he is and moved on to find substantial investment opportunities.
I suppose if the Well Society became the dominant force and were in a position to make decisions, they might consider appointing a chairman with experience, vision, a plan, and a track record of success?
1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:In the medium, if not the shorter term, the Society Board needs to take a more proactive and assertive role in the running of the club at a strategic level, and that includes finances and investment, from whatever source.
That would tie in with my point above. If the Society has the ability to do so, it should recruit a Chairman who can deliver. McMahon has undoubtedly done his best, and he's stepped in when he didn't have to, but we need a serious operator in that position. Erik Barmack isn't the right choice, and neither is Jim McMahon in my opinion.
New Investment Options
in Club Chat
Posted
I'm not just trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince everyone.
Also, you don't like the Well Society plan? Fine. We can always keep looking to source new investors. There may be others out there. It's not a case of refusing to work with Barmack means a cast-iron pledge that we ramain fan-owned for eternity.
If another group or individual comes along with a plan for investment we can always look at it.
But once we sell half the club, that's it. There's no more chances.