bobbybingo Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 31 minutes ago, Spiderpig said: We keep getting told the club is stable nothing to see here etc, etc but the current board are all leaving, no sign of a new CEO, the optics don't look good. Wilson's just been appointed 'Director of Corporate Communications and Responsible Banking and member of the Executive Committee of Santander UK.' He starts in March, so you'd suspect his resignation at Motherwell is connected to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numpty Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 6 minutes ago, bobbybingo said: Wilson's just been appointed 'Director of Corporate Communications and Responsible Banking and member of the Executive Committee of Santander UK.' Somewhat ironic given the recent lack of important communications from the club... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 1 hour ago, numpty said: Somewhat ironic given the recent lack of important communications from the club... Some people tend to fall upwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 The fact that Wilson, Weir and McMahon are stepping back and have suddenly decided fan ownership isn't viable doesn't seem like a coincidence to me. I think they have always viewed fan ownership as a means to allow them to continue to run the club and have probably convinced themselves they are the only people in the support capable of it. They have obviously put a look of work into the club which they should be thanked for but it always has to be remembered that they all worked for Royal Of Bank Scotland and were in prominent positions when it was run into the ground by Fred Goodwin. Bankers will always say the richest person in the room is the one you have to listen to but the vast majority of us aren't bankers and we all should bear in mind who actually paid the bill for Royal Bank Of Scotland going under and who walked away with a lot of money. I think after this week it's clear that the infamous video wasn't aimed at attracting investors as this has obviously been going on for longer than a few weeks. The video was aimed at us to demoralise us and prime us for the suggestion that we need to sell the Well Society shares to whoever is interested. The reason we don't have a CEO is because the two interested parties want to appoint their own people and Weir and McMahon have chosen to prioritise driving through a sale over the day to day running of the club. A manager who can't win a football match with a secret contract, videos that embarrass us and make it seem like the club have no money, vital positions unfilled on and off field and the threat of a bogeyman auditor popping up again. It's all designed to bully us into handing the club over. The Society needs to be proactive and put out some figures that people can actually understand. We have a top 10 budget in the country but everyone I talk to goes on about "no money". We are spending over £5 million a year on wages while being owned by the Society, that doesn't look like "no money" to me. We need a great deal more information about the club's financial status at the moment relative to other clubs and we need it put forward in way that the average society member can comprehend. We also need people to be able to separate the on and off field factors, we can't abandon fan ownership because Kettlewell and Daws are useless in the transfer market. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizoxy Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 4 hours ago, wellgirl said: I thought Andrew Wilson resigned a while ago. Yep, I'm pretty sure he did. Maybe this was just the official announcement of that in the AGM? He was gone for a bit then came back, now he's gone again. We know that we have plans to restructure the board, and add to it, so this shouldn't be a surprise or red flag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilmour Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 So a director has resigned. We still have no CEO. We have 3 board members 2 of them well society. They don’t want to give up control and have put it to a non binding vote. They have said they can raise 600k Pa when just now it’s 100k at most. The LA consortium want us to be a feeder club for their youth. And oh we made a loss of £1.6m. does that sum up the AGM better without the spin ?????? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 7 hours ago, gilmour said: So a director has resigned. We still have no CEO. We have 3 board members 2 of them well society. They don’t want to give up control and have put it to a non binding vote. They have said they can raise 600k Pa when just now it’s 100k at most. The LA consortium want us to be a feeder club for their youth. And oh we made a loss of £1.6m. does that sum up the AGM better without the spin ?????? The loss was all down to Burrows completely pointless stadium and pitch redevelopments. The people who are leaving the board are the ones trying to force through a sale. I wouldn't be surprised to see them reappear if the Well Society gives up the shares. We don't have a CEO because McMahon and Weir want to sell a club they don't actually own. There are serious questions about who the CEO and Chairman have actually been representing these last few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 9 hours ago, gilmour said: So a director has resigned. We still have no CEO. We have 3 board members 2 of them well society. They don’t want to give up control and have put it to a non binding vote. They have said they can raise 600k Pa when just now it’s 100k at most. The LA consortium want us to be a feeder club for their youth. And oh we made a loss of £1.6m. does that sum up the AGM better without the spin ?????? As has been mentioned, the director in question moved job role several months ago so, as much as folk are entirely free to link the resignation with perceived "financial trouble", it was always going to happen regardless due to time constraints etc. In terms of the CEO, I think there's a lot of valid criticism to be levelled at the club for the lack of movement in that area previously & certainly around lack of communication. However, at the moment, we are simply in a situation where there will be no CEO as long as the majority shareholding in the club is up for negotiation. Any potential new majority shareholder would want to either appoint their own people or have a very strong input into any appointment, so despite a recruitment process having already been carried out & suitable candidates identified, there'll be no movement there for the time being. The club theoretically could offer the job to one of those suitable candidates tomorrow if the majority shareholding was no longer a part of any negotiations. That's not me trying to sway anyone's vote one way or another, it's simply the reality of the situation - and something I think that was mentioned at the AGM too. As for the Society saying they can raise £600k a year, I'm not sure I've seen anybody say this? The Society is saying it can grow & generate more income than it currently is. The financial situation of the club hasn't changed - where we are now is where we've been for years, we have a model that is essentially based on bringing through young players & selling them on, while also hoping we can finish higher than 10th & get a few cup ties. Because of that model, since fan-ownership we've made a net profit of £2.2m. If that model was to fail for a season, the Society already has the funds to plug the gap that would arise but fully supports looking for external investment to ensure that, if that model failed a second time before the coffers were rebuilt, the gap wouldn't be an issue. That's essentially the whole situation in a nutshell. The idea that the Society or indeed anyone even needs to put £600k in a year just isn't accurate. We have a particular model based around a strong youth academy & selling players for profit - a model that could be in place even if we didn't have fan-ownership - and this is about adding extra protection to maintain the level we can budget for should there be a couple of terrible seasons. Some think that should be achieved by actively looking to move on from fan-ownership, some think that could be achieved by considering options that include moving on from fan-ownership, and some think that can be achieved by maintaining fan-ownership while also looking for external investment that aligns with that (which was, in all fairness, the pitch in the video where potential investors are invited by Leann Crichton to join the 3,700 odd members of the Well Society rather than replace them). In what seems to have become quite an emotive debate all in, there's not really a wrong answer there - just differing opinions of what's possible & different perspectives of how important fan-ownership is to each individual 'Well fan. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 47 minutes ago, Jay said: As has been mentioned.............,As for the Society saying they can raise £600k a year, I'm not sure I've seen anybody say this? The Society is saying it can grow & generate more income than it currently is. The financial situation of the club hasn't changed - where we are now is where we've been for years, we have a model that is essentially based on bringing through young players & selling them on, while also hoping we can finish higher than 10th & get a few cup ties. Because of that model, since fan-ownership we've made a net profit of £2.2m. If that model was to fail for a season, the Society already has the funds to plug the gap that would arise but fully supports looking for external investment to ensure that, if that model failed a second time before the coffers were rebuilt, the gap wouldn't be an issue. That's essentially the whole situation in a nutshell. The idea that the Society or indeed anyone even needs to put £600k in a year just isn't accurate. We have a particular model based around a strong youth academy & selling players for profit - a model that could be in place even if we didn't have fan-ownership.... Good post Jay. Well done. I agree with 95% of it but am unclear about the other 5%. From what I've taken from the AGM, and I wasn't there admittedly, we have enough cash to last us for some time. However, the SPFL requires an 18 month guarantee in October, that we'll have enough in the coffers to last for a further 18 months (until March 2026) if we have another bad year. Currently, we couldn't give them that guarantee ie roughly £1.5m annually to cover that bad year. To be clear there's no imminent threat of adminstration whatsoever. Is my understanding correct, albeit the £1.5m figure might be inaccurate? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 12 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: Good post Jay. Well done. I agree with 95% of it but am unclear about the other 5%. From what I've taken from the AGM, and I wasn't there admittedly, we have enough cash to last us for some time. However, the SPFL requires an 18 month guarantee in October, that we'll have enough in the coffers to last for a further 18 months (until March 2026) if we have another bad year. Currently, we couldn't give them that guarantee ie roughly £1.5m annually to cover that bad year. To be clear there's no imminent threat of adminstration whatsoever. Is my understanding correct, albeit the £1.5m figure might be inaccurate? Absolutely fair to raise this - while I have very strong views on the debate, I am trying to be factual & balanced so entirely right to highlight if I've missed something! My understanding is that you are correct around the need for the club to outline to auditors later this year that funds are available to cover the following 18 months, and I believe that Derek Weir outlined both that & stated that the Well Society being able to do so was his preferred option (@StAndrew7 may be able to correct me if I'm wrong though!). That's something that might have to happen anyway - regardless of the outcome of the consultation, the Society has to approach the coming months assuming there'll be no external investment because there's every chance that those with offers on the table could pull out, further negotiations could break down, due diligence could raise red flags, or Society members could vote against any proposal. So it's something that the Well Society will absolutely have to prepare for & I am not aware of us as a Board being told that that is not doable. However, I do agree that it's perhaps one of the few vague areas in the discussion, particularly around specific figures - so, in order to make sure we're dealing with the facts, I'm happy to seek a proper bit of clarification on that specific issue from those at the club & post here again with that, rather than responding with my own interpretation of the situation. Hopefully that will be a bit more useful! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, Jay said: In terms of the CEO, I think there's a lot of valid criticism to be levelled at the club for the lack of movement in that area previously & certainly around lack of communication. However, at the moment, we are simply in a situation where there will be no CEO as long as the majority shareholding in the club is up for negotiation. Any potential new majority shareholder would want to either appoint their own people or have a very strong input into any appointment, so despite a recruitment process having already been carried out & suitable candidates identified, there'll be no movement there for the time being. The club theoretically could offer the job to one of those suitable candidates tomorrow if the majority shareholding was no longer a part of any negotiations. That's not me trying to sway anyone's vote one way or another, it's simply the reality of the situation - and something I think that was mentioned at the AGM too. Hopefully we can shut this down this week then appoint a CEO who can make a start on the summer transfer business. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said: Good post Jay. Well done. I agree with 95% of it but am unclear about the other 5%. From what I've taken from the AGM, and I wasn't there admittedly, we have enough cash to last us for some time. However, the SPFL requires an 18 month guarantee in October, that we'll have enough in the coffers to last for a further 18 months (until March 2026) if we have another bad year. Currently, we couldn't give them that guarantee ie roughly £1.5m annually to cover that bad year. To be clear there's no imminent threat of adminstration whatsoever. Is my understanding correct, albeit the £1.5m figure might be inaccurate? Thanks for raising this point. It is something I have been trying to calculate into the overall picture. And to Jay for his response. My basic arithmetic came up with round about the same figures to take into account the 18 month requirement. To add to your comments maybe Jay you could also investigate/clarify 1. What happens if we are not able to present the required confirmation? A Red Flag status was mentioned. What exactly does that mean and are things like a transfer embargo put in place? Or is it merely that, say, quarterly updates are required until red flag status removed? As I think happens elsewhere as a first step. I appreciate that is worst case scenario but if the WS is expected to carry the burden, then we need to know what the implications are of coming up short. Those implications might spur members to dig deeper or make external funding more palatable? 2. Are pledges/ standing orders taken into Account or is it only actual funds as proven by Bank balances? 3. Maybe a bit more controversial. Mention was made that the WS has assisted or funded various projects at the request of MFC. All very worthy causes but so far I think those projects coupled with donations to cover shortfalls have used up around £1.2m of member subscriptions. Leaving a net balance of £750k? To enable funds to appreciate, is it time to consider closely exactly what projects are funded for the foreseeable future? I know that may go against the ethos of being a Community Club etc etc, but the core business of MFC is football after all and it might help if projects/donations were concentrated on the core business of the organisation meantime. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 Thanks Jay. You've struck a fair balance. I can now see the importance of supporting the Society in the coming months irrespective of the eventual outcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 My further thoughts on the subject are The only option we have is for the WS board to come up with a proposal to meet short AND long term financial needs to maintain and IMPROVE aims of the Club. I cannot envisage potential investors providing substantial finance without taking control of the club ie 51%+ meaning new owner That scenario means in effect the WS Society is dead. I for one will not continue to support financially any new "private" owner. How many WS members share this view. If there is in fact a new owner then for by any initial input they will have to cover shortfall for the cancelled DD's. Earlier I mentioned improved goals. I say this because for o long time budgeting for stated aim of 10th. is budgeting for failure or even disaster. We as a club need to aim for 6th and somehow provide the budget to do so. To realise this and meet the aim of the club to sell on players at a profit we have to start improving the level of skill potential brought in . It cannot be denied that with a few exceptions we have over the years declined in that area. I digress slightly by saying this could said generally of all of Scotland. It also has to be said that where we have seen success with a player he has invariably left under freedom of contract. It is of course the player choice. Much of what I have said above is easy, putting it into practice is the difficult part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 6 hours ago, Kmcalpin said: Good post Jay. Well done. I agree with 95% of it but am unclear about the other 5%. From what I've taken from the AGM, and I wasn't there admittedly, we have enough cash to last us for some time. However, the SPFL requires an 18 month guarantee in October, that we'll have enough in the coffers to last for a further 18 months (until March 2026) if we have another bad year. Currently, we couldn't give them that guarantee ie roughly £1.5m annually to cover that bad year. To be clear there's no imminent threat of adminstration whatsoever. Is my understanding correct, albeit the £1.5m figure might be inaccurate? Not long back from Fir Park so thought I'd fire a reply to this now, having spoken to someone about it earlier. My interpretation was essentially right but always good to double check! So, in short, you're pretty much right - your understanding is correct, albeit the figure might be inaccurate. Essentially, the club's Executive Board has to be able to demonstrate to the SPFL in October that it will be able to fulfil all it's obligations, such as fixtures, for the next 18 months. If we don't, a red flag gets put against us in the system which could mean some sort sanctions (which I don't have the knowledge of at the moment). This happens every year and will happen again this year. Whether it's the Well Society in control of the club, a new majority shareholder, or the Society with external investment in another arrangement, that'll happen. I think the difficulty, and vagueness, comes when you want to stick figures on it. The £750k in the Well Society's coffers may very well be fine. There's a lot of moving parts of course - by October, the playing squad won't be remotely the same, we may have finished higher than 10th, some big earners might move on , and various other aspects that pretty much mean it's not really possible to put a figure on it at this stage. Of course, it's also important to remember that this is an annual process so it has to be done every year - so if the Society did empty it's reserves at any point, it becomes a greater challenge next year and so on. That's why the Well Society isn't saying "everything's fine" and is instead looking to both grow its own membership & income, and look for outside investment. The future of the club is never in doubt under fan-ownership, the issues arise in terms of competitiveness if budgets had to be cut enough to ensure we could fulfil those obligations in future years. Basically, I think we'd always be able to meet the requirements but there could come a time when that does hinder us quite significantly on the park. That really just ties in with what I've posted elsewhere in terms of what folk really want from their football club - the spectrum from "short term success with a risky future" to "long-term existence but ongoing challenges to ensure you're at the top level". Hope that clarifies it a bit. I'm not sure if I even had to outline that as much, rather than just say "are, you're basically right" but it's keeping my mind off of being raging at today's injury time. 😂 Hopefully that addresses some of the other points too, although I would just add that I agree with the suggestion about changing the view of club projects etc - I think that's very much the case. Around £900k has been loaned to the club for various requirements over the years, with additional smaller amounts provided for the "projects" you mention. But it's important to safeguard as much of the Society's reserves as possible just now because, even if we all desperately wanted to leave fan-ownership behind us, that might not be the outcome, and so the Society has to act like it's going to be the majority shareholder without any additional investment, while still looking for that investment. Hope that's useful - I'm really keen to still post to provide some more transparency and communication from the Society side, but I also need to take a breather from the last week - I know they get a lot of grief at times but I genuinely don't envy Derek Weir & those on the Executive Board, I've been pretty much thinking and talking about nothing other than this for days, even losing some sleep at times, so I can only imagine how much of a slog it all is for them. 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 5 hours ago, dennyc said: Maybe a bit more controversial. Mention was made that the WS has assisted or funded various projects at the request of MFC. All very worthy causes but so far I think those projects coupled with donations to cover shortfalls have used up around £1.2m of member subscriptions. Leaving a net balance of £750k? To enable funds to appreciate, is it time to consider closely exactly what projects are funded for the foreseeable future? I know that may go against the ethos of being a Community Club etc etc, but the core business of MFC is football after all and it might help if projects/donations were concentrated on the core business of the organisation meantime. Good point, with which I fully agree Denny. I want to help every single good local cause but at this time we need to help ourselves first and foremost. I hope that doesn't sound selfish and self centred. I know it's chickfeed in the great scheme of things, but what about another bucket collection at the next home game...if there are enough volunteers. Strike while the iron is hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Something I've always wanted to know but never really took the trouble to find out is how much flows into the WS coffers on a monthly basis from DDs. It would give us some idea of where we are and where we need to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, santheman said: Something I've always wanted to know but never really took the trouble to find out is how much flows into the WS coffers on a monthly basis from DDs. It would give us some idea of where we are and where we need to be. Try contacting Sally Hall. The answer to those 2 questions might go a long way to deciding what investment route to go down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motherwellfc1991 Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Thanks Jay- your posts and information are informative and generally well balanced. One question in the coming days you or someone may well be able to answer is how much bottom line profit has the society made in each of the past 3 years? The information that has been presented to me (I’m not saying it’s true or I believe it) is rather alarming and if the case should be shared with all society members before this potential vote goes ahead. Rather than me post ‘hear say’ the members should be presented with the facts to allow a balanced decision if it goes to a vote. Theres no doubt the Alexander appointment along with his merry men and the Hammell appointment have put the club in a bit of a mess it would appear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, Motherwellfc1991 said: Thanks Jay- your posts and information are informative and generally well balanced. One question in the coming days you or someone may well be able to answer is how much bottom line profit has the society made in each of the past 3 years? The information that has been presented to me (I’m not saying it’s true or I believe it) is rather alarming and if the case should be shared with all society members before this potential vote goes ahead. Rather than me post ‘hear say’ the members should be presented with the facts to allow a balanced decision if it goes to a vote. Theres no doubt the Alexander appointment along with his merry men and the Hammell appointment have put the club in a bit of a mess it would appear Despite my promises of a breather, I couldn't help but log on again just to answer this. 😂 It's worth highlighting that the accounts of the Well Society aren't kept a secret or anything, members at the last AGM got a copy and, it's my understanding, that you'd be able to get sight of the accounts as a member so, if that's something you're keen on, I'd recommend emailing the Society directly. And, of course, if any investment offers did go to a vote, members would be provided with as much detail about everything as possible. That said, stuff like this should absolutely be far more accessible to members. I personally feel like the move away from a standalone website particularly hampered the ability to provide the kind of information members want in an accessible, transparent way, and it's ongoing issues around that communication & transparency that have led to the rolling out of new workstreams to specifically deal with these things. I believe information on the workstreams is going out this week. But aye, I genuinely don't have the accounts to hand as I had a physical copy from the AGM but, even if that sounds like a bit of a cop out, I am genuinely not aware of any alarm bells from the last few years. As highlighted in the consultation email, the Society brings in an income of £155,000 net per year at the moment, and the only outgoings are the staff member's salary, admin costs, and whatever is decided to be spent on the club or other projects (Youth Academy, Community Trust etc). Some years those outgoings will naturally be larger than other years, depending on what we've agreed to finance, but the Society always ends the year with a profit & there certainly aren't any issues with Society finances I'm aware of. Happy to take on board the "hear say" though, even if you want to DM it. If there genuinely is a concern there, I can obviously raise it with the Society Board & get a proper answer (which is what would tend to happen if you emailed in the concern anyway - you'd likely get a response with input from Tom Feely, who is essentially the Society's treasurer/accountant, as well as Co-Chair). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 17 minutes ago, Jay said: Despite my promises of a breather, I couldn't help but log on again just to answer this. 😂 Thanks again Jay for all your answers. I agree about the effect of the move away from a dedicated website. Also agree that Members should be given an "Idiot's Guide" to monthly income, effect on club budget etc. Take a deserved break now mate. You've done more than enough. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 On 2/22/2024 at 11:01 AM, santheman said: Could the club do some kind of non voting share issue where you can buy as many shares as your budget allows. I seem to remember some lower league Spanish team did something similar a few years ago and it went worldwide and raised something like half a million euros. There must have been loads of collectors/football nerds who seemed to be quite happy to shell out 20 quid or so for the privilege of having a framed share certificate on the wall of their man cave. No idea if it would be feasible or break any SFA rules or am I just talking pish. I'd buy some. To raise 500k at say £250 per buyer we would need 2000 new shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 On 2/25/2024 at 9:37 AM, Jay said: My understanding is that you are correct around the need for the club to outline to auditors later this year that funds are available to cover the following 18 months, and I believe that Derek Weir outlined both that & stated that the Well Society being able to do so was his preferred option (@StAndrew7 may be able to correct me if I'm wrong though!). Sorry mate the tag didn't work so only just catching up on this. You're correct, Sean (Shaun?) from the WS board stood up and mentioned that he wants the WS to have the option and due diligence the others parties are getting to be able to guarantee the kind of backing on offer. Derek Weir agreed and said that as both a member of the WS and as a fan, that was his personal preference for the club moving forward. I think a lot of the so called "need" for investment has come from, as you've outlined yourself in the last few days, a particular malaise around the Society for a long time. Hopefully now the new board will be able to take things forward and change that perception and also fill the coffers a bit to support more investment in the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirParkCornerExile Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 On 2/25/2024 at 6:41 AM, steelboy said: The loss was all down to Burrows completely pointless stadium and pitch redevelopments. The people who are leaving the board are the ones trying to force through a sale. I wouldn't be surprised to see them reappear if the Well Society gives up the shares. We don't have a CEO because McMahon and Weir want to sell a club they don't actually own. There are serious questions about who the CEO and Chairman have actually been representing these last few months. The loss has fuck all to do with money spent on the ground, how many times does this need to be said. The ground improvement were paid from a £3 million 20 year interest free loan from the Scottish Govt. The money could only be spent on facilities. So at most the payments on the loan cost £150,000 the remaining £1,450,000 loss has fuck all to do with the ground and pitch improvements. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 43 minutes ago, Villageman said: To raise 500k at say £250 per buyer we would need 2000 new shareholders. I wasn't meaning "proper"shares more a novelty type of thing that might appeal to the type of Ex Pat audience who would pay £5/£10 for a certificate they could put up in their man cave to impress their mates. As I said a Spanish team did something similar a few years ago and raised a fair bit of cash from all over the world. Even if we made a few grand from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.