steelboy
-
Posts
12,177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
127
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by steelboy
-
-
43 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
The point is is that this stuff shouldnt be getting leaked.
Barmack gave an interview where he was asked - by a Motherwell fan - if he intended to take majority control. He answered the question so it's fair enough if someone at the club or Society feels his answer was dishonest and wants to set the record straight.
-
Just now, StAndrew7 said:
No, but if someone has told them the details of the deal, they have. So he is potentially accepting information from a commercially sensitive negotiation which is under exclusivity and I would imagine non-disclosure agreements.
If anyone has leaked it must be someone at the club or the Society.
Journalists don't need permission to publish leaked info. It happens every single day.
-
3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:
Also, Barmack is an ex-VP of Netflix and has actually gone on the record about things, why not take him at his word?
Well for a start being "an ex-VP of Netflix" means fuck all to me.
I had never heard of this guy until last week so i'm obviously going to be sceptical. I'll take the word of long time Motherwell fans ahead of some Californian Tech guy, that's just sensible.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:
He published nonsense about the accounts/Kilmarnock earlier in the year and his points were very quickly shot down by the Club/Weir in an interview in January. If anything I'm questioning his motives more because he's a Motherwell fan, rather than taking him at his wor
The info about wages is correct. We have spent a lot more than Kilmarnock which is a good thing.
-
23 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:
I would hardly say that it's "confirmed" because of who his dad is/was. Because if that is the reason he's in the know, that's undermining the potential outcome of an ongoing commercial/financial negotiation and would be incredibly unprofessional from both of them.
His father is no longer involved with the Well Society board and neither is Gavin McCafferty so neither of the two of them aren't bound by anything.
This is just standard journalism. It's telling us we're going to be asked to give up majority control, that Douglas Dickie is the one driving it (big surprise there) and that the Society has roughly £700,000 in the bank. It's a good article.
-
6 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
Can you confirm where he got this confirmation from?
It's being published by a reputable journalist who is a huge Motherwell fan. Why not take him at his word?
-
2
-
-
Journalist Gavin McCafferty who's father was the first Well Society chairman confirming that we will be asked to give up majority control.
-
11 minutes ago, Spit_It_Out said:
Exactly this in my eyes nothing to lose and everything to gain we are plodding along in the mud and folk are carrying on like these people are James Bond villains with a master plan lol.
No red line for me either it’s time to make moves and this is a move in the right direction.
We've got everything to lose. Literally. It's ours and we can lose it.
It's not about whether these people are Bond villains or not. It's about the long term future of the club, maybe these people won't fuck us over but they might sell up in a few years and the next owner could be anyone.
It took less than four years for Boyle to pull the plug due to his other businesses. Les gave up after two years due to unforeseen health problems. Things can change quickly when you are reliant on one person.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, dennyc said:
“Our perspective is we never want to make an investment that disempowers the Well Society and the connection the fan-owned group has with the club. There's a bunch of different ways to construct deals that can accomplish the objectives of a fan ownership model, alongside outside investors. “
What do you think he meant with that response? How does taking a majority holding tie in with not wishing to disempower the WS?
They will just say it's still 'empowered' with 30% or whatever.
-
1
-
-
Looking at social media and there are the usual rosters talking about "global exposure" and "massive investment".
What planet are those people living on? Look at the games the last two nights, why would anyone in another country want to watch us over that standard of football?
-
53 minutes ago, dennyc said:
Decent Interview with valid questions asked and addressed. And he is now on record as not wishing to oust the Society. Further details to come but encouraging.
He also didn't say no to being the majority shareholder.
Obviously any new owner would want to keep the Society involved. It would be very expensive to get rid of it.
The fans being the majority shareholder has to be the red line.
-
The Turnbull money wasn't a fluke. We invested in our academy and got the reward. It's the same with Max Johnston, Allan Campbell, Chris Cadden, James Scott and Jake Hastie. We've had other players who we've had training compensation for who didn't even make the first team. It's at the core of the club.
-
3 minutes ago, dennyc said:
Bottom line is that we cannot continue as is. It does not work and leaves us exposed.
7 continuous years in the top flight and £2 million in the black. It does work and it is sustainable.
-
48 minutes ago, dennyc said:
Ok. so not a complete run of losses. Just the four loss making seasons out of seven and that includes the most recent two years which represent the biggest losses. A trend which should cause concern, and would in most Businesses.
So my question about sustainability is still valid. How many £3m players can we unearth and profit on given current transfer rules? Strip that Turnbull fee out and the seven year Net Profit more than disappears. And in that timeframe we have also ingathered funds from a fair number of Development/Agreed Fees which failed to offset operating losses. The strategy of relying on such sales to survive is just asking for trouble.
Bringing players through is part of our business model. We have Lennon Miller now, there will be more.
Focusing on 12 month cycles rather than the medium term would be cutting our own throat. A lot of annual losses over the years have just been investing the profits from the previous year.
-
1 hour ago, dennyc said:
There is definitely strength in numbers and members donations being locked in is also a positive.
But the Club and others have been given Society funds on a permanent..not loan....basis. Contrary to what we were promised would happen when the Society was established. So Society funds are lower than they should be given total donations collected. A figure in excess of £1.25m is gone forever. The people who allowed that to happen are still on the Society Board. More recent appointees are looking to have better control over Society assets but it remains to be seen whether they will succeed. I genuinely wish them well and early signs are promising.
I agree with this and whenever (or possibly if) we have a Society meeting there are going to be a lot of questions asked about exactly that.
Going back to the very start of the Society one of the first things that happened was the Society bought 5% of the club for £250,000 without informing the members which led to complaints, a meeting and new rules being put in place. The share sale recently apparently involved selling 5% of the club for £10,000 which is hugely undervalued. My back of a fag packet calculations put this at a 90% discount for the buyers. I'm sure i'm not the only member who wants to know why this is considered beneficial for the membership and who exactly benefitted from the discounted sale.
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, dennyc said:
Given how Society funds have been managed up to now, the limited scope for increasing monthly income given our fan numbers and the fact the Club has failed to at least break even for a number of years .........for how long do you think the Society can continue to sustain the Club before funds run out?
That's not true though. These are the figures during the period of fan ownership so far. When you compare it to other clubs during the same period we have done exceptionally well. According to Derek Weir at the AGM we are likely to break even this season which is impressive considering the dead weight in the playing squad.
16/17: (£104,000)
17/18: £1,720,000
18/19: (£436,000)
19/20: £346,590
20/21: £3,575,615
21/22: (£1,082,000)
22/23: (£1,605,000)Net profit: £2,415,205
-
55 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:
Re that investment, if we are talking £1.5m for 20% of the club with the Society retaining 51% then I think thats closer to where we should be valuing ourselves, albeit I think thats still a little on the low side.
Giving up transfer income would be crazy unless we are getting some kind of transformative investment on the playing side.
It would just be giving away an income stream for nothing in return. Apart from having some glamour due to be in the entertainment industry I don't understand why are meant to be impressed by this guy. He's never been involved in professional sport before nevermind football, has never lived in Scotland and doesn't seem to be that wealthy.
All that seems to have happened is that he's discovered a bunch of mugs who might give him millions of pounds worth of assets at a huge discount.
-
9 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:
Proper fan ownership would have seen the fans given the opportunity to buy actual shares in the club to raise cash they would then have a genuine say in how the club was run.
I don't see how you could possibly have more say as a small shareholder than as a Society member?
Everyone is equal in the Society, it gives us a legal structure to pool our resources, no one can take money out of it and it could easily outlive most of us.
-
I didn't sign up to pay monthly because I didn't want my wages going to repaying John Boyle and Les Hutchinson.
Even now if the Society wants more funds it's only to have the cash in reserve to give the club. For me if the club has enough money to afford Harry Paton, Jon Obika, Andy Halliday and Oli Shaw they definitely don't need any more of my money. It's like someone booking a week in Ibiza then asking for a tap because they're skint.
-
8 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
Why are people entitled to a vote if they aren't paying into the well society?
I'm sure I've told you this before but I'll post it again.
Every adult Well Society member owns one voting share. No one can lose their share or sell or transfer it.
-
18 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
Yes or no - would you, under any circumstances, be prepared to consider giving up fan ownership?
We've already been asked that. If you don't walk about with your eyes closed you'll know it's easy to get people to vote against their own interests.
What I'm expecting is an offer where we initially go equal with the American and it leaves McMahon, Weir, Dickie etc with the swing vote.
It's worth remembering that the Society used own 76% of the club and sold 5% at a huge discount not long ago. That reduced the Society's legal status as majority owner and it would be interesting to know who bought the shares.
-
26 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
And can an individual push such a deal through without the Well Society members voting in favour of it?
I went to a Well Society meeting years about expanding to a 14 team league with a 6-8 split. At the beginning of the meeting virtually everyone in attendance was against the proposal. Two hours later due to bullshit, lies and spin from Leeann Dempster everyone in attendance apart from three people voted for it. With a straight face she told the meeting that the 12 team league set up with 1 relegation place and 1 playoff place that we have now had for 10 years would put the viability of the club at risk and that auditors would refuse to sign off on our accounts. Time has showed that she was lying through her teeth but in the meeting there was no way to argue against her.
The side in favour of American ownership has the backing of the individuals currently controlling the club and the PR resources they can muster. At the moment no one has stood up and made a case for the fan ownership and what it has achieved over the past seven years. If that continues it's pretty much guaranteed the members will give the club away.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
When did he promote the idea of giving an American the majority shareholding?
The video he paid for that says we are looking for American investment.
-
5 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
Talking to folk about their concerns won't secure that.
The rumoured proposal is the American taking 51% of the club for £1.5m investment. The question put to the Society members was about losing the majority shareholding. It's fair to assume that's what's going to be on the table even if the money is different.
We don't even know if anyone is asking about long term protections in the negotiations. We seem to be expected to trust McMahon to act in the interests of the shareholders when he has already spent a large sum of his own money promoting the idea of giving an American the majority shareholding. Clearly he has a personal interest.
Hopefully we will be able to put questions forward to get details about not only what the American wants but also what he has ruled out before any vote but the way things have been handled so far doesn't make me optimistic.
New Investment Options
in Club Chat
Posted
Where was this?