David

I believe any improved offer would not significantly differ in terms of the finances on the table, as I don't think he is the type of buyer who has access to the substantial funds some supporters hoped for to make us competitive with the likes of Kilmarnock, Dundee, or St Johnstone. His financial contribution essentially amounted to an additional £300,000 per year, did it not? That is not going to go very far, so unless he substantially increases the financial terms, I do not see how he could improve the offer. The only viable option is the same offer, but with the Society's holdings not dropping below 51%, and I suspect he would not be agreeable to that.

Wouldn't it be more insightful if the actual club board made their views known about the offer and why they voted to unanimously accept it? I'd be interested in knowing their reasoning. Thus far, we've had radio silence on the matter. Oh, that's precisely the issue. I've encountered very few opinions suggesting that retaining fan ownership is the main concern here. It's not. That matter appears to have been set aside for the time being, with the seemingly absurd terms of the offer being placed at the forefront. If this were a credible and fair offer that also saw the Society's percentage drop below 51%, there would be nowhere near as much vitriol. Certainly, there would be robust discussion on the merits of the offer weighed against retaining fan ownership, but I've seen virtually none of that. The focus is entirely on how the club board could have the audacity to even suggest approving such an offer. I have had extensive discussions with Society board members over recent months, and this is most certainly not the case. Would they require significant persuasion to relinquish fan control? Absolutely. However, nothing is off the table if the right offer is made. What we are witnessing here is a response to an utterly ludicrous offer and frustration directed towards a club board that has attempted to force it through. Absolutely. The main issue is that the Society had two board members on the club board who did not actually believe in the very ethos of the Society itself, which is absurd. I have absolutely nothing against the two individuals who voted in favour of this offer at club level, and the other who voted in favour at Society board level, but the fact is, this is a Society board. If you do not believe in and wish to represent the Society, you have no place being there. For me, the bigger issue now is not the ridiculous Barmack offer. That should never be approved in its current form; it is laughable. The bigger issue is the vacancies on the Society board, and more importantly, the vacancies on the club board that should be filled by individuals who represent us. This needs to be addressed swiftly, because I have absolutely no faith in the current club board as it stands, which, oddly enough, still includes the two individuals who hold the Society seats, despite one of them having already resigned from their position at Society level.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. By my reckoning, and I could be mistaken, the Society representatives on the club board are there to convey the wishes of the Well Society board, which the wider membership elected to represent them. Now, that doesn't mean that any investment offer can be decided by the Society board itself, but surely the board is able to vote among themselves to decide upon a recommendation? And that recommendation is then taken to the club board and conveyed? If the hastily assembled online poll (and that's what it really was), which was cleverly worded and vague enough to have many people thinking, "well, I'll vote yes because maybe a Saudi Prince will arrive and want to buy us, and I want that to be considered," was binding insofar as the board itself having to approve any and all offers based on the result of it, then I'd say we've all been deceived to some extent. For me, the board of the Society, who are privy to many details that the wider membership are not, should have the power to make a recommendation, and the majority recommendation of the Society board should be conveyed by the Society representatives on the club board.

If anything has come of this sorry debacle, it surely is that the Society needs some protocols in place for dealing with potential investment or interested parties in the club? The first priority must be a clarification of the voting structure and responsibilities of those Well Society board members who are elected to represent the Society on the club board. Any vote of the type we've just witnessed must follow a clear protocol, along the lines of: The Society board should first discuss the matter internally and hold an internal vote among its board members. The Society representatives on the club board must then carry the result of that internal vote to the club board and vote accordingly. They cannot be permitted to vote based on their personal opinions. If they wish to do so, they should run for the club board independently of the Society. They cannot use the Well Society seats on the board to push their own agendas. Also, there must be some clear boundaries regarding potential investments or buyouts from external sources. Firstly, an agreed valuation of the club, accepted by both the club board and the Society board, should be established and reviewed annually. Any interested parties must meet this valuation before any offer is considered seriously. Parameters should be decided upon that investors must meet for the Society board to consider relinquishing control of the club. We cannot endure this prolonged process every time someone expresses an interest in investing. For instance, any offer to buy the club in its entirety for the agreed valuation should prompt a discussion about relinquishing control of the club, involving both the Society board and the wider membership via a vote. In my opinion, Barmack's offer should never have progressed to a membership-wide vote, as it did not meet any reasonable criteria that would justify replacing fan ownership. The absence of these protocols, or something similar, has led to the current situation where the fan ownership group board votes against a proposal while their representatives on the club board vote in favour of it, leading to their resignation. Meanwhile, a potential investor attempts to gain support on a Scottish Football forum. The entire scenario would be laughable if it did not have such serious consequences for the club. Now we're in a situation where the Society board looks like it will lose three (two confirmed) members, and the club board has lost the two society representatives. Now, we need to look at Society board elections to fill those spaces and then look at who will represent the society on the club board. All while Erik Barmack is sitting in the background waiting on word about his offer.

Excellent point. It is yet another example of how backward things are at present. I believe the Well Society representatives on the board view themselves more as club board members who relay information to the Society board, rather than actual Society board members on the club board to represent the wishes of the Society. In my opinion, they should have consulted with the Society board at large, then taken that vote outcome to the club board and voted accordingly, which would clearly have been to vote against the Barmack proposal in its current form.

If you do, make sure to read the content posted by Vietnam91. Whoever that is, they're bang on the money and posting some excellent insight.

Given that the club board voted unanimously in favour of the deal, it is reasonable to assume that Caldwell, Lindsay, and McMahon supported it. The first two may not have had an actual vote, but I would wager they were in favour for the club to use the term "unanimous." That is their right. They can vote as they see fit. The issue arises with Feely and Dickie. I understand their positions on the club board are as representatives of the Society, so by voting in favour of effectively ending the Well Society's control of the club, they have voted against the principles of the organisation they are supposed to represent. Moving forward, I believe the Society should seek to have them removed from the club board and replaced with two other representatives. Those on the current Well Society board who are interested should make themselves known, and the members can vote on who we wish to represent us at the club level. We also need to replace the three individuals on the Society board who voted against maintaining Well Society control of the club. Their positions have become untenable, as two of the three have already admitted.

Who is actually on the board now? Just McMahon, Dickie and Feely? EDIT: Lindsay and Caldwell were recently added I see. I'm guessing that they also agreed that Barmack's proposal was worth backing.

Yes, but there's a difference between "an alternative plan to outside investment" and them creating "an alternative plan to bring in outside investment" which is what I've seen a lot of people saying. The general view has been that if we don't want Barmack's deal, the Society need to find a way to match that deal elsewhere. The Society is and always will be (I hope!) focused on ways we can operate as a fan-owned club. And in all honesty, there's a ton that could be done to improve how we operate.

The Society's number one concern is making sure that they have the funds needed if things under fan ownership go pear-shaped as has been described in the worst-case scenario. Again, I've said it before, but the Society cannot actually create and implement a plan that would bring in outside investment. I'm sure there are certain legal hurdles that must be crossed by any entity that goes down the route of engaging with international investors and striking investment contracts and MOU's. That kind of thing has to come from the club itself, and the board, led by the CEO. What the Society can do is look at alternative ways to make the club more appealing to certain groups and individuals, and that is something I know for a fact they have been working on. But again, somewhere in all of this we need to be asking what the actual club itself has been doing?

The BBC are simply after clicks. Nothing more. They don't even get the players on our team's names right sometimes. The Well Society can create a plan that improves the workings of the Society itself, but even if it came up with the best plan to draw investment that the footballing world has ever seen, they're not ideally placed to enact that. It all comes down to the actual board of the club, and the CEO. Those individuals are being paid (or should be getting paid) to do that job. Not the people who give up their free time to help run the Well Society. As an aside, if I was on the board of the Well Society and we came up with the plan for investment and for taking the club forward, I'd be looking to be more involved in the implementation of that plan and the running of the club. It's easy to forget sometimes, but the club board is answerable to the Society. Not the other way around.

And what if they don't come up with a proposal that would see us bring in an extra few million pounds?

What about those of us who aren't keen on the Barmack proposal, but who instead believe we should be expecting more from our board and CEO? I'm not so sure about that. The resignations have come about because the individuals involved voted in favour of reducing the Society to less than 51%, which means essentially putting an end to fan ownership. If they believe that, then they shouldn't really be on the board of the Society.

This is absolutely key for me. Regardless of money from outside sources, we simply cannot escape the fact that in order to continue as a well-run club, we need to operate within our means.

They can certainly assist the current club board where possible. However, the responsibility clearly lies with the well-paid individuals who are experienced in such matters to actually do their job. Our new CEO hasn't been in the position for long. I would be more than happy to continue as we are and see what ideas and plans he has (why not set a date of July 1st for his plan?) Despite some reports to the contrary, we're not heading towards disaster without an additional £300,000 a year. You wouldn't think so with the amount of chat about "pressure" on the Society board. What about the pressure on the CEO and the club board to actually do the job?

That's how investment works, though. Nothing is a sure thing. The bigger question here is, is there interest in a club in Scottish football? For me, if the right kind of investor is approached, the answer is yes. It just takes a bit of "out the box" thinking. However, none of that should involve someone coming in and expecting to be given overall control. Or to have the Well Society holdings diluted below 51%. There's a ton of things that can be tightened up and changed on that side of things for sure. That's where I hope to see the current CEO step up and make some changes.

With recent resignations there will be places available on the board. Why don't you run and get the job done?

Is it, though? As others have mentioned, is it really the responsibility of a group of volunteers to create an investment plan for a million-pound business? Doesn't some of the responsibility for that lie with the CEO of the company? You know, the person who's being well paid to do that job? Or even the Chairman? Or is it a case of fans sitting back and saying, "Well, the club and board have voted in favour of the current offer from Barmack. Now it's up to the Society volunteers to better it, or we go with the sub-standard first offer"? Here's an idea. Why not hold the board of the club and the new CEO accountable for doing their jobs? The fact that they proudly voted in favour of recommending the current offer is alarming, to say the least. Here's a question. If the Society somehow came up with a way to raise an extra few million pounds for the club, do we want the individuals who saw fit to recommend the current offer from Barmack being in charge of how that money is spent? Sorry, but for me, this isn't on the Society. This is on the board. If they honestly believe this offer is as good as it's going to get for a club like ours, then we really need to be asking questions about their suitability for the roles they're in.

Although Budge has an emotional attachment to Hearts, correct? If we had a Lanarkshire version of Anne Budge we'd be laughing. There are ways to do it even outwith that scenario though. I've done it with companies I've worked with, and I've offered up assistance to the Society on that front. I will also say that they're a lot more receptive since the new board came into play. In my experience, anyway.

This is where it can get tricky. Tricky, but not impossible. We ideally need to find revenue streams from investors that don't involve us handing over control of the club.

This is crucial for me. In my opinion, many people are mistakenly assuming that a potential investor seeking a 49% shareholding means the Society retains control. This is not necessarily the case. The key point for me is that the Society itself must retain a minimum of 51% control. Could we negotiate to reduce our holdings from the current 71%? Absolutely. There is room for negotiation with the right party, but our holding simply cannot fall below 51%. That is my firm boundary.

To be fair, achieving success in business doesn’t automatically make someone unpleasant. Much of reaching that level involves building relationships and being trustworthy and reliable enough that others want to work with them. There are always bad apples in every industry and at every level of business. However, the stereotype of the evil, ruthless multi-millionaire who seeks only to make a quick profit at others’ expense is just that—a stereotype.

The thing is, we're not turning down £2 million investment. We'd be essentially turning down a £2 million offer for control of the club.

There are ways we can raise the required funds via outside sources without handing over the keys to the castle. It can be done, and it wouldn't be that difficult really.

I mean a business plan that would demonstrate to us, the Motherwell fanbase and Society membership, that the deal is of benefit to us long-term.