David

More than likely because the executive board at the club, showing incredible levels of delusion, have told him that he won't need to change anything or cede any ground, because they'll "deal with" the fans. All he has to do is make sure he has the money and his Tequila pal ready, and has the front office at Wembley on speed dial.

Because that's not how the footballing world actually works.

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I was starting to wonder if I'd imagined Monday 😂

I just noticed the club update on the website says, "The club will address these by providing a comprehensive update early next week." I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn it originally said Monday? Where did I get the idea that we were hearing something today?

I accept that, and it's up to the individual who posted the information to deal with the consequences, if any. They likely understood the impact of sharing conversations where a millionaire revealed some startling information. They could have easily considered your point and kept the messages private. Let's be honest, 99% of people would have done that. But they didn't. They've shown a level of courage rarely seen at our club's executive level and, in my opinion, should be commended as a whistleblower. If this deal is rejected, as I believe it should be, they will have done the club's fanbase a great service. What I'm arguing against are those who say they would ignore this information and vote based solely on the "shiny brochure," as someone else put it. Voting only on what Barmack's polished plan says, rather than his actual words and true intentions, is incredibly naive and mind-boggling.

If other potential investors keep discussions within the negotiating team (such as the executive and society boards), they needn't worry. I'd focus more on the content of Barmack's messages rather than his confidentiality concerns.

Really? You’re more concerned about that than Barmack openly discussing his ridiculous plans on internet forums and WhatsApp with people not involved with the club? His language and content doesn't suggest he’s serious about these negotiations. It’s very concerning that anyone would vote on the club’s future based only on the interested party’s curated information, ignoring the nitty gritty behind it. There’s ignorance, and then there’s willful ignorance.

Nothing wrong with "Un, Dos, three times" Moysie, a man of international style and pizzaz.

You need a VPN. It's worth every penny.

Those WhatsApp messages posted on P&B are simply unbelievable. And to think I've wasted valuable parts of my weekend trying to have a rational discussion with Barmack over there as if he's a serious prospective investor. And the kicker? He suggests that, under his leadership, the club would essentially override the manager on player signings and squad composition, all in the name of boosting marketing opportunities. The example he uses is his being able to secure £300k in sponsorship from a tequila brand owned by a friend on the condition that we sign two players from Latin America. He proposes just going over the manager's head and signing these players to secure that extra money.

I thought so as well, but I cannot find anything online that suggests that CONMEBOL actual do this. Although it seems each nation taking part will see around $2 million minimum go to their football federation. Let's hope we get something out of it.

Let’s keep things civil; there’s no need for personal attacks. Your contributions to this discussion have mostly been very insightful. Let’s maintain that standard.

Not at all. These circumstances have arisen due to negotiations with the investor. This situation has highlighted a clear governance issue at the club. You could be right. However, considering that Society board members are expected to support and champion fan ownership, it could theoretically be expected that they would normally look to kick such a derisory offer into touch, as the majority of the Society board voted to do. At the very least, they should respect the Society and its members enough to take the decision of the Society board to the executive board level. It’s also possible that they didn’t do that for the following reasons: I’ve read that while Caldwell and Lindsay have been added to the executive board, they haven’t been given voting rights yet. If that’s true, then the voting members of the executive board are McMahon, Dickie, and Feely. This means that if Dickie and Feely had voted according to the Society board’s decision, McMahon would have been the only one voting in favour of the proposal, resulting in it being rejected by both the executive and Society boards. However, by Dickie and Feely voting based on their personal opinions rather than the Society board’s decision, the narrative changes completely. Instead of both boards rejecting the proposal, it appears that the executive board unanimously accepted it, while the Society board voted to reject it. Even with Caldwell and Lindsay having voting rights, the vote would have gone in favour by 3 votes to 2, which is much closer than a "unanimous" verdict, completely changing the optics of the situation. At best, they treated their fellow Well Society board members with utter contempt. At worst, they were acting for nefarious reasons, as outlined above. What questions are you looking for answers to?

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead. In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors. Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense. The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

What I would ask is for anyone who supports the Barmack deal to explain their thinking. Surely that isn't too much to ask? I’ve seen plenty of detailed explanations on why the deal isn’t favourable. Where’s the counter-argument? Perhaps I'm missing something, and there’s incredible value in this deal that justifies giving up the fan ownership we’ve worked so hard to achieve. We had three Well Society board members vote in favour of the deal. Where are they? Why aren't they explaining why they voted that way? Surely if they believe it's the way forward, they'll tell us why? I’m not denigrating anyone; I’m simply being honest. If it appeared that way, then I can only apologise. But the future of our club is at stake here, and what I won’t apologise for is asking difficult questions or making unpopular statements. I genuinely want someone who intends to vote in favour of or is considering voting in favour of, this deal to explain their views. I want to understand why they believe it represents value and is worth nullifying almost half a million pounds of contributions from people who, for the most part, cannot afford to lose that money. I deeply value and respect the hard-earned contributions of our fans, and I believe they deserve a thorough explanation. I also believe it’s important to point out that Barmack may see the club as being run by people he can easily sway. People saying, “Well, at least he’s taking time out of his busy schedule to speak to us online,” need to understand that he’s doing this because he wants to facilitate a deal where he acquires a top-flight football club and all that it offers for very little financial input. I wasn't talking about the Society board. I was referring to the wider membership. I genuinely believe he is actually shocked by the response he has received online and the number of educated, savvy replies his nonsense has attracted. He revealed his plan when he said he was still confident the deal would go through because he only needs 75% to vote in favour, and he doesn't believe that a majority of Society members are on these forums and thus aren't reading the responses and arguments against his deal. He is relying on articles and headlines like this to push the deal through. Phrases like "ex-Netflix boss" and "Hollywood business tycoon" make him sound like a big deal. I mean, surely a "business tycoon" and "ex-Netflix boss" knows what's best, right? I genuinely believe he assumed that we mere mortals would be grateful that he was coming in to help save our supposedly troubled club.

I'm not quite sure where you've gotten that impression. Erik has a chance to get a top-flight football club for next to nothing. He's going nowhere until he's actively voted against. That's true. However, I fail to see any genuine benefit in this deal that would justify relinquishing control. In my view, any fan willing to vote in favour of this either doesn't fully understand how the deal is structured or values the club so little that they consider it almost worthless. As I said before, and I don't apologise for repeating it: The plan that has been suggested at the moment, from what I can see, basically consists of the following: Barmack "invests" £1.95 million over six years. For this, he will receive 49% ownership, with 8% ownership from the beginning The Well Society has to invest £1.35 million over six years. For this, we will lose 25% of our shares. Barmack also becomes Chairman with the deciding vote in any tie. So, he invests £1.95 million to see an increase in shareholding to the tune of 49%, while we, the fans, invest an additional £1.35 million to lose 25% of our shareholding. I've never been involved in any business deal where that kind of thing is suggested. Ever. Why? Because it's ridiculous. In any normal business setting, it would be laughed out of the room, and the party suggesting it would be roundly ridiculed. Oh, and on top of the above, we also need to agree to write off 50% of our loan to the club to the tune of £434,000. That is money that fans, including pensioners and people who are not well off, have paid to the Society in good faith, by the way. Almost half a million pounds of our money, just written off. Gone. So, with all of that said, what do we get in return? A multi-page business plan that shows why we need him on board? An exciting vision of the future under his chairmanship? No. We get talk of "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects rather than short-term player acquisitions" and incredibly vague chit-chat about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence." Do you want to know what I think? I think that the above would be considered derisory by any competent board in the world of business. But, Barmack has found a well-run entity that's involved in a league that is looking at an uptick in TV and sponsorship money coming over the next five or so years and has realised it's "fan-run." Which, in the mind of an investor and businessman from Los Angeles, as the club board keep describing him, means that it's run by simple folks who won't understand all the technicalities and who, in his likely view, are simply too fucking stupid to understand exactly what all this means. He wants the club on the cheap, and not only that, he wants us to actually pay for much of it. If you add in the money The Society would be losing on top of the contributions we'd need to make, it would actually mean that our total financial contribution over the six years would be £1,784,000 for the privilege of losing 25% of our shares, while he contributes £166,000 more than us over the same period for an increase in 48% of shareholding. You want an honest assessment? He thinks we're mugs. And sadly, going by some of the responses I've seen, he's correct to an extent. I always feared that while fan ownership is a good thing, it does leave us open to business predators who simply see an asset that is owned by a large group of people who, for the most part, aren't business-savvy. So, if you’ve contributed money to the Well Society when you had virtually nothing to spare, you surely can’t be pleased with the idea of an “LA-based millionaire” coming in and demanding that nearly half a million pounds of OUR money be written off as a condition for his investment. All in the name of, as he puts it, "a clean balance sheet."

Any changes to the deal or future plans will likely be announced through official channels, rather than on an internet forum. I wouldn't give much credence to what's said here or there; it's all just opinions.

Who mentioned that the wider membership wouldn't get a vote on this? It's already been announced that a two-week ballot will open on 1st July. That is your vote. See above? Who has said there won't be a vote? The level of transparency has largely been influenced by the NDAs that are undoubtedly in effect, or at least were during the executive board's initial discussions with Barmack. Regarding the interview with Ben Banks, it serves as a means for the Society Board to communicate information and their perspectives to the fans. How else would you suggest they do this? Several board members have participated in the forums, including this one, and they are always accessible via email or PM here or on P&B.

French centre-forward?

An interesting read for sure. One thing that stood out to me is the following: "Feedback has been provided back and forth, with this proposal coming after outgoing club chairman Jim McMahon launched a campaign targeted for the American market in January. The rationale was that the club needed investment to challenge the likes of Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs." I've underlined and bolded the part I wish to highlight. My question is, does Barmack's offer put us in a position to compete with the likes of Aberdeen, Hearts, and Hibs? In my view, an investment of £300,000 per year simply isn’t sufficient to achieve that. It would require a level of investment that enables us to financially compete with Aberdeen, Hearts, and Hibs for me to seriously consider relinquishing fan control. This offer from Erik Barmack simply doesn’t accomplish that.

I believe this situation might be getting a bit confused. From my limited understanding, here’s how it works: There are two seats on the club’s executive board reserved for Well Society board members, allowing the Society board to have representation. Currently, Tom Feely and Douglas Dickie occupy these seats. When a proposal like this comes up, the Society board votes on it. In this case, they voted to reject the offer by 6 votes to 3. Following this, the Society's representatives on the executive board should have voted in line with the Society board’s decision, which was to reject the proposal. This doesn't necessarily mean the executive board would have voted against the proposal, but it would not have been unanimous. For instance, McMahon, Caldwell, and Lindsay could have voted in favour, while Dickie and Feely, representing the Society board’s views, would have voted against. Their role on the executive board is not in a personal capacity but as representatives of the Well Society board, reflecting its views. Here’s where it gets interesting. I've read that while Caldwell and Lindsay have been added to the executive board, they haven’t been given voting rights yet. If that’s true, then the voting members of the executive board are McMahon, Dickie, and Feely. This means that if Dickie and Feely had voted according to the Society board's decision, McMahon would have been the only one voting in favour of the proposal, resulting in the proposal being rejected by both the executive and Society boards. However, by Dickie and Feely "going rogue" and voting based on their personal opinions rather than the Society board’s decision, the narrative changes completely. Instead of both boards rejecting the proposal, it appears that the executive board unanimously accepted it, despite the Society board voting to reject it. At best, with Caldwell and Lindsay having voting rights, it would have gone in favour by 3 votes to 2. Which is a hell of a lot closer than a "unanimous" verdict. Quite a different perspective, isn’t it? It's important to remember that this vote by both boards is not about actually accepting or rejecting the offer, but rather making a recommendation. There's a difference there. The executive board voted unanimously to recommend accepting the proposal, while the Society board voted to recommend rejecting it. These are just recommendations that the wider Society membership (the majority shareholder) can consider when making their own decision in our upcoming vote. This brings me to my main point. How confident would you be of the proposal being accepted by the Society's membership if the official stance from the club is that both boards recommended rejecting it? It's very different from us going to the vote with the understanding that the executive board voted "unanimously" to accept, while the Society board members voted against it.

That's true, but the bottom line is that it's fun. I love looking over previous stats and trying to figure out how a player will do for us. It's all part of the fun of the close season and the transfer window, isn't it? Everyone making different assumptions, guessing how it'll play out, looking at previous performance for other clubs and so on.

Even if they were not aware of the Well Society rejection of the proposal, I'd fully expect them to refrain from voting on the matter at Executive Board level until the Society had the chance to reach a verdict. Without that verdict, they had no mandate to vote on the matter whatsoever. And if the club decided to press on with their executive vote without consulting with the majority shareholder then that is a really bad look.

From what I can see: "The Well Society has two representatives on the board, Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely, while club chief executive Brian Caldwell and finance director David Lindsay both joined the board in recent weeks." That would tell me that they're there as representatives of the Society, and as such, they should be putting forward the views of the Society board to the Executive Board of the club, not voting in accordance with their own personal viewpoints.