David

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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?

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.

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. 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? 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.

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.

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. 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?

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. 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." 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I think the club board have little regard for the fans, if I'm being honest.

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.

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.

Which means if he doesn't do well this season, we can easily get rid of him in the summer. Good move by the club.

You may be right in that assessment. The unbelievable part is that when I questioned Barmack about his plans for the club if his bid succeeds, he openly admitted to having only "10% of the information needed" to formulate a plan. The fact that we're even considering this deal is utterly absurd based on that alone.

I posted my response to the update from the club board over yonder, so I figured I may as well post it here too: The club board's statement fails 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. A valuation of £4m, justified through questionable adjustments and assumptions, does not align with the reality of our club's assets and potential. The club board's argument that public meetings are impractical due to the number of voters is a weak excuse for avoiding direct engagement. Written statements cannot substitute for the dynamic exchange of a public forum, where questions can be answered in real-time, and accountability is immediate. The assertion that the club is not in imminent financial difficulty contradicts the rationale for seeking investment. If the club’s finances are stable, as claimed, why is there a sudden push to bring in external investors? This inconsistency is troubling and suggests either financial mismanagement or a hidden agenda. The claim that issuing new shares to Erik Barmack, while also offering shares to the Well Society and other shareholders, will preserve fan ownership is misleading. The staged investment over six years, culminating in Barmack owning 49% of the shares, effectively hands over substantial control, if not a majority, and risks undermining the very foundation of fan ownership. The board's confidence in the safeguards against asset stripping is unconvincing. The supposed protections do little to alleviate concerns about long-term control and influence over club assets, including Fir Park. Finally, the proposed board structure, even with assurances of balanced representation, does not guarantee that fan interests will be safeguarded. The potential for conflicts of interest and undue influence remains high, particularly with Barmack appointing two of his own to the board. It is imperative, in my opinion, that the board halts this process until a full, detailed business plan is presented 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.

Do you really believe that's how the executive board sees this situation playing out? That Barmack's offer gets rejected and they are simply shown the door? I genuinely think they expect the offer to be accepted. From their perspective, they believe they can use their superior business acumen to explain to the members why it's not the offer that's flawed, but our understanding of it. If Barmack's offer is rejected, I fully expect he'll return with a new proposal. He's not going to disappear unless the club, through the Society board, presents an alternative that eliminates the need for Barmack or his offer in its current form.

The last point in this sentence is a huge factor in my opinion. We may have the money to spend, but two factors come into play in any given transfer window. 1. Are there players available on the open market who justify that increased expenditure on a single individual? 2. 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 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.