David
-
Posts
6,357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
94
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by David
-
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, dennyc said:
When did it become the Society's role to secure outside investment for the football Club? That is surely the role of the Club Board of professionals with the support of the Society (if allowed in).
The club board and the Chairman and to a lesser extent the CEO are being given a free pass in all of this. Some fans are bypassing the experienced and qualified individuals on the club board and putting the responsibility on the board of volunteers who form the Society board.
-
30 minutes ago, wunderwell said:
Yes as a general BUT the Society can barely manage themselves.
All this chat about how the new members are doing so much more?
Quantify that - two statements and getting everyones details updated on the database and a couple more buckets at the game. C'mon........I think that's a bit unfair to be honest. The Society has done a very good job to this point. Perfect? No, and I'm sure they'd agree on that, but there's been funds raised, and let's be honest, without those funds the club would have faced more problems than it has.
It's also a fairly new board that has come into place, and instead of spending most of their time dealing with actual serious matters they've been dragged into dealing with rogue "investment" videos, and are now embroiled in trying to make sense of a ridiculous offer from an LA-based businessman that has changed already within a matter of days of it being released.
The Society Board have not been privy to these discussions, by the way. They pretty much learned about the changes to Wild Sheep Sports offer when we did.
30 minutes ago, wunderwell said:Still waiting on this game changing plan. Eric B is acting when is the WS going to?
Erik is acting? Really? Because I've asked him numerous times for an actual detailed plan of what he's going to do if he wins this vote and he's equivocated about how it's unfair to expect him to provide a plan.
Erik's "acting" is essentially an attempt to secure a presence in our boardroom and a 46% ownership stake in the club for £300,000-£350,000 per year over the next six years.
He has promised absolutely nothing.
I ask you, where is his game-changing plan? Or our own club boards, for that matter?
-
4 hours ago, santheman said:
All I would add to that is if TRUE fan ownership is the holy grail then we had better be prepared to dig very deep into our pockets.
If the Wild Sheep sports offer is accepted, fans should be prepared to dig very deep into their pockets.
Under that agreement, the Well Society is committing to raising their current yearly contributions by 11% for the first three years, and by almost 40% in the final three.
Furthermore, those funds raised won't go into a "rainy day" pot for use in case of emergencies. Instead, the funds will go directly to the club to be used as the executive board, chaired by Erik Barmack, sees fit.
2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:However, I hope that the Society comes up with more, much more than that. Unless the vote is pulled, then the Society has to consider 2 scenarios in its strategic plan. The first being that the Wild Sheep proposal is deemed acceptable by stakeholders. The second being that its rejected and the Society, does its own thing, for the time being at least.
I am aware that the Society is developing a plan; however, it should be noted that the Society Board has not been employed to manage the club and generate revenue. This is where the confusion arises.
The club Chairman, CEO, and executive board are meant to be the braintrust responsible for running the club itself. The Society’s role is to plan and raise funds for a cash reserve to be utilised in emergencies.
At present, the club board wishes to have almost complete control over the club and full control over negotiations with Wild Sheep Sports, yet it seems to be interested in the Society’s funds.
In essence, the message appears to be, "Give us your contributions and money, and be quiet. The adults will handle everything. We just need you to pay for it."
2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:I really hope that the Society's Plan focuses very heavily on community and local business involvement. In my eyes this is absolutely critical to investment. Half hearted attempts were made in the past to do this with very limited success. It will also have to be careful not to impinge on the club's contact with businesses; rather build on that and complement it.
Why hasn’t the club itself formulated a plan to focus significantly on community and local business investment? The Society should be concerned with this only in terms of raising funds for the Society.
What we need to clarify is whether the Society is now being asked to act as a proactive majority stakeholder, providing funding and business direction as well as directly financing the club.
If so, that’s acceptable. However, it comes with a cost, and that cost is the Society having much more influence over how things are managed. I am quite certain McMahon will not tolerate this.
-
5 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:
So, what you're saying is that private shareholders could donate some or all of their shares to the Society?
If private shareholders wished to do that, perhaps. You'd need to check the small print.
I guess the question really comes down to if private shareholders would buy shares and then gift them to the Society. Or if they'd rather sell them to someone and get their money back?
-
6 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:
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.
Considering the Society will have to find a way to raise £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three as part of the agreement between the club board and Wild Sheep Sports, I'm not sure it'll be in a position to start spending money on shares.
-
Just now, dennyc said:
What happens upon default? No need to answer as I know you are asking that same question.
This is what Wild Sheep Sports (who even came up with that bloody name? They need to be sacked) is relying on to gain majority control.
If and when the Society can't increase income to meet the conditions imposed by the executive board and Barmack, I believe it will allow WSS to increase their shareholding.
I can't emphasise this enough: We need absolute clarity on what happens if the Society can't meet these financial obligations under the proposed deal.
Under the proposed deal, the Society would be required to run faster than it ever has simply to stand still and not lose ground.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, dennyc said:
Does the Society still require to more or less match the Sheep input on an annual basis? Thus reducing Society Funds?
Yes.
-
Some thoughts:
Well Society's Financial Commitment:
The WS is required to invest increasing amounts each year (£200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three). If the WS fails to raise these funds, they could be forced to dilute their shareholding.
Question: What happens if the WS cannot meet its financial commitments in any given year? Does Wild Sheep Sports have the option to cover the shortfall, thereby increasing their shareholding?
Board Composition and Decision-Making:
The Executive Board has eight members, with the WS and Wild Sheep Sports each nominating three directors. If there's a tie, Erik (as Chair) has the deciding vote.
Question: Could Erik's deciding vote be used strategically to influence key decisions that might indirectly lead to an increase in Wild Sheep Sports' control over time?
Potential Avenues for Erik Barmack to Gain Total Control
Increased Share Purchase:
If the WS cannot meet their annual financial commitments, Wild Sheep Sports could purchase additional shares, increasing their ownership beyond 47%.
Strategic Decision-Making:
By leveraging the deciding vote, Erik could push through decisions that might favour Wild Sheep Sports financially or operationally, potentially leading to scenarios where the WS might have to sell more shares or accept further investments from Wild Sheep Sports.
Buyback Failure:
If the WS is unable to exercise the buyback option, Wild Sheep Sports remains in control of 47% of the shares. Any future capital injections might come with terms that could further dilute WS’s control.
Financial Pressure:
If the club faces financial hardships, which more than likely will happen based on the ludicrous ideas I've seen from Barmack to this point, which won't come cheap, the WS might be pressured to accept further investments from Wild Sheep Sports to stabilize the club, gradually increasing Wild Sheep Sports’ shareholding.
Factors that haven't been addressed
Nothing has changed around what Barmack is actually going to do to provide value for his owning almost half the club. That hasn't changed, so I refer to my previous post:
The club board's statement has unfortunately failed to address the core issues surrounding Erik Barmack's investment proposal adequately. Despite claims of transparency and the promise of detailed information, Barmack himself has admitted that he only possesses a fraction of the necessary data to formulate a robust business plan. This raises serious concerns about the thoroughness and preparedness of this investment proposal.
The absence of a detailed business plan, which should have been a prerequisite for consideration, leaves us with significant uncertainty. The club's valuation, heavily contested by supporters, appears based on speculative and incomplete data, further undermining confidence in the proposed deal.
The notion that consultation can replace the need for a comprehensive, transparent business plan is deeply flawed. Fans and stakeholders deserve to see concrete figures and detailed plans, not vague promises and unverified claims. Until such a business plan is presented, any decision on this proposal is premature and fraught with risk.
It is imperative that the board halts this process until a full, detailed business plan is provided and subjected to rigorous scrutiny. The future of our club and the principle of fan ownership are too important to be compromised by incomplete and inadequately supported proposals.
-
16 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:
So you think the Club Board will listen to the fans?
I think the club board have little regard for the fans, if I'm being honest.
-
20 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
I feel a bit sad if so. Id have liked Theo to stay another season but he's earned his move if he does leave.
Considering some fans believe it worth selling the family silver for £300,000 a year, you have to imagine they'll be willing to drive Theo to the airport themselves if it means we bring in the kind of money being discussed.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, dennyc said:
Spot on David. All to the point and exactly how every fan I have spoken to sees things.
I've picked out one paragraph just to add that I think it is not only the Club's assets that need protecting.
This proposal would vastly reduce/eliminate funds held by the Society as monies would be committed to match EBs input and to purchase any new shares not taken up by existing Shareholders....... should any funds be available. And there is a strong possibility that Members' contributions well drop off considerably. The sop that monies from transfer income might be set aside for the Society clearly recognises that possibility. Kind of ironic as well, the Club hands cash to the Society so we can hand it straight back to them.
And that's not even looking at the ludicrous condition that the Society write off a huge chunk of money owed to it by MFC.
To make matters worse, it appears that the Society wasn't even consulted on the matched contributions mentioned in the proposal. It's not as if Barmack and the executive board sat down with the Society board and agreed on a figure that everyone thought was acceptable.
The effective cancellation of 50% of the loan, which amounts to just under half a million pounds, adds to these concerns.
As far as I can tell from what I've heard, this has all been imposed on the Society, though I may be mistaken. Those seeking confirmation can approach the Society board directly. I'm willing to be corrected on this, and I would actually welcome that. The idea that the club board and Erik Barmack determined these figures without consulting the Society itself seems unreasonable and verges on arrogance.
-
1
-
New Investment Options
in Club Chat
Posted
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:
Outcome and Benefits:
For Motherwell FC:
For the Tech Firm:
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:
Outcome and Benefits:
For Motherwell FC:
For the Health Tech Company: