New Investment Options

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

Kibble fund certain areas of the Club in return for the benefits those areas can provide the kids Kibble look after. Think transport, training and gym facilities, physical and mental heath support and the like. All of this supports the kids and the football club/players. .They can also justify providing funding as those same kids regularly gain work experience within the Club. It is a win win situation and does support the football club financially, but not technically by charitable donations. 

Sounds like the kind of thing that would sit well with the Well Society ethos.....

[well_said]

4 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

No. It would be up to the Society as a whole to vote on the matter. The Society owns the shares not the individual. We are all "members" of the Society.

It was the 19% I was referring to , surely that's got nothing to do with the well society?

 

[joewarkfanclub]

Just now, well_said said:

It was the 19% I was referring to , surely that's got nothing to do with the well society?

 

The Well Society own 70% of the club.

To maintain a majority shareholding obviously requires 51%

So the Society could sell 19% of its shareholding to an interested party and still maintain control of the club.

Investors could of course try to buy up the other 30% of shares that are in private hands.

The Society would have no control over that, but they dont have to.

That money wouldnt go into the club though. It would go into the pockets of the individual shareholders.

The club could obviously hold a share issue to generate money as other clubs have done, but I couldnt comment on how that would work or the pro's and cons of that......

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

The Well Society own 70% of the club.

To maintain a majority shareholding obviously requires 51%

So the Society could sell 19% of its shareholding to an interested party and still maintain control of the club.

Investors could of course try to buy up the other 30% of shares that are in private hands.

The Society would have no control over that, but they dont have to.

That money wouldnt go into the club though. It would go into the pockets of the individual shareholders.

The club could obviously hold a share issue to generate money as other clubs have done, but I couldnt comment on how that would work or the pro's and cons of that......

The planned investments will be made, as far as I'm aware, in the purchase of additional shares (i.e. adding monetary value to the club) and by diluting, in percentage terms, the holding of both the Society and any private shareholders such as myself. The Society won't be diluting its shareholding by selling off some of its own, it'll have its shareholding diluted by the investor purchasing their own shares of the club.

So the Society will still hold the same number of shares, that will just be a lower overall % of the total number of shares held in the club.

Someone else can clarify here but no one is being asked to "sell" their shares as part of any of the current terms that have been discussed.

Again, those terms could change based on any best and final offers which are/aren't made if negotiations continue to that stage with any party/parties

(Also should we not be having this chat in the investment options thread this is about Sir Stuart of Kettlewell)

[Kmcalpin]

In answer to StAndrew7 on the Stuart Kettlewell thread, I agree we're not being asked to sell our shares. Any new investment, should it go ahead, would involve the party buying newly issued shares. As far as I know, no existing shareholder, be it  the Society or small individuals like myself, would be asked to sell. However our percentage shareholding would be diluted i.e. 1.5 million shares out of 2.1 million issued currently = 71% but 1.5 million shares out of say 3.5million = 43%. (These figures are just illustrative).   

[dennyc]

22 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

I think it depends on how you define "Can compete".

Does it mean: 

A remain in the Premiership..just

B drop to Championship with an occasional foray to the Premiership

C settle in the Championship like Morton or Ayr. 

With insufficient investment....from whatever source......does A not lead to B then C and even beyond until a sustainable level is reached. Clearly I would not expect to go beyond Championship level, but I bet Dunfermline fans thought the same.

[dennyc]

10 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

In answer to StAndrew7 on the Stuart Kettlewell thread, I agree we're not being asked to sell our shares. Any new investment, should it go ahead, would involve the party buying newly issued shares. As far as I know, no existing shareholder, be it  the Society or small individuals like myself, would be asked to sell. However our percentage shareholding would be diluted i.e. 1.5 million shares out of 2.1 million issued currently = 71% but 1.5 million shares out of say 3.5million = 43%. (These figures are just illustrative).   

Posted 11 minutes ago

That's how other Clubs have raised finance. Issuing new shares with funds flowing to the Club rather than existing share holders. fairly common and a legit practice. Those new shares can sometimes have terms which differentiate them from Ordinary shares. Preference as a common example which take priority if the worst happens, or are head of the queue regards dividends. The net effect can be that shares held by others are reduced in overall %. Not in the know but I would imagine that is the plan.

[santheman]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Sounds like the kind of thing that would sit well with the Well Society ethos.....

Already does with the links with the MFC  Community Trust.

[dennyc]

6 minutes ago, santheman said:

Already does with the links with the MFC  Community Trust.

The Community Trust does lots of wonderful and essential work. But I think the difference in Paisley is that funds flow into St Mirren from Kibble thus reducing overall Club expenditure. If I am wrong please correct me, but I don't think the MFC CT provides funding to the football Club. Not dissing them in any way, far from it, but I think it is a different set up.

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

The planned investments will be made, as far as I'm aware, in the purchase of additional shares (i.e. adding monetary value to the club) and by diluting, in percentage terms, the holding of both the Society and any private shareholders such as myself. The Society won't be diluting its shareholding by selling off some of its own, it'll have its shareholding diluted by the investor purchasing their own shares of the club.

So the Society will still hold the same number of shares, that will just be a lower overall % of the total number of shares held in the club.

Someone else can clarify here but no one is being asked to "sell" their shares as part of any of the current terms that have been discussed.

Again, those terms could change based on any best and final offers which are/aren't made if negotiations continue to that stage with any party/parties

(Also should we not be having this chat in the investment options thread this is about Sir Stuart of Kettlewell)

That would make sense, with the revenue going into the club. And yes, happy to move the discussion.

[santheman]

33 minutes ago, dennyc said:

The Community Trust does lots of wonderful and essential work. But I think the difference in Paisley is that funds flow into St Mirren from Kibble thus reducing overall Club expenditure. If I am wrong please correct me, but I don't think the MFC CT provides funding to the football Club. Not dissing them in any way, far from it, but I think it is a different set up.

No they don't provide any funding to the football club but what I meant was that they do much the same Community based things that Kibble do for St Mirren.

I know that many of the ball boys and catering kiosk staff at the Midden are all "Kibble kids" and their football academy is part funded by them in return for some of their kids accessing their facilities.

How much that actually amounts to in £'s I've no idea but don't think it will be a fortune.

Anyway probably not the correct thread for this so apologies to anyone looking in expecting posts about our manager.

[Villageman]

On 2/25/2024 at 12:32 PM, Villageman said:

Probably prepared to double it, triple it not so sure. Would need some more info first.

Current level of member, how many members contribute monthly pledges. total  monthly income. that way we can say what average payment is. I appreciate early days members paid a lump sum to join, they may or may not continue with monthly payments.

Quick update.  Following the latest club I have requested this information from them.

[Kmcalpin]

Did every Society member receive an email about Zoom sessions this coming Sunday?

A positive step forward and I just hope sufficient members show an interest and take part.

[grizzlyg]

21 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Did every Society member receive an email about Zoom sessions this coming Sunday?

A positive step forward and I just hope sufficient members show an interest and take part.

Yup got the email,  sounds good

[El Grew]

On 2/24/2024 at 12:32 PM, mfc said:

So we should take any investment going and spend like crazy but if we go bust it's ok cause we can come back as some tinpot outfit playing in public parks.

That’s not what he said. I’m afraid that’s typical of too many posters coming on here and putting their own spin on others’ remarks.

[mfc]

1 hour ago, El Grew said:

That’s not what he said. I’m afraid that’s typical of too many posters coming on here and putting their own spin on others’ remarks.

Like you have just done with mine then.

[Dee]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

Someone's just posted the results of the vote on pie and bov. The vote went in favour of fans considering voting in support of the society losing it's majority share. Email been sent to members. 

993* Well Society members (a 36% turnout) responded to the poll:
 
351 votes were cast for the option: I would not consider voting in support of any proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.
 
642 votes were cast for the option: I would consider voting in support of any investment proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.

 

 

Interesting results, in all honesty I was expecting a lot more to be in favour of the "I would" option. 36% of the membership that voted saying No before they have sight of the options on the table is very telling. 

For me the most disappointing aspect is the extremely low turnout on what I'd stress is an important issue. 

[wellfan]

13 minutes ago, Dee said:

993* Well Society members (a 36% turnout) responded to the poll:
 
351 votes were cast for the option: I would not consider voting in support of any proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.
 
642 votes were cast for the option: I would consider voting in support of any investment proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.

Interesting results, in all honesty I was expecting a lot more to be in favour of the "I would" option. 36% of the membership saying No before they have sight of the options on the table is very telling. 

For me the most disappointing aspect is the extremely low turnout on what I'd stress is an important issue. 

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option.

Crude assessment:

I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. 

If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. 

There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result. 

[santheman]

I'm maybe wrong here and someone please correct me if I am but do you have to have made a minimum payment of £300 to the WS before you get a vote.

The reason I ask is that a mate of mine who pays £5 a month and has paid that for 2 years so has only paid in £120 gets all the weekly emails but didn't get a vote.

If that's the case it might mean a number of members might be in the same position and could be another factor in the relatively low voting figures.

[steelman1991]

4 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I got a vote and I've never paid a lump sum. 

I don't think he meant a "lump sum", but the sum of the contributions hadn't exceeded that level as a threshold for voting rights.

I don't know for certain, but I doubt there is a "limit". Once you've paid, your a member and entitled to a vote.

[weeyin]

I wasn't that surprised in the turnout. When the Society was launched, I recall a lot of members saying they were joining to support the club, but had no real desire to participate in the running (which is fair enough).

I was a little surprised by the nearly 2 to 1 vote in favour of giving up ownership. Unless we find some generous benefactor who isn't expecting much of a return of investment, it feels like the road to a new Morrison's and an Excelsior Stadium ground share.

Boyle just about killed us off, and he was a fan.

 

[grizzlyg]

I pay £10 a month and got a vote

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, Dee said:

993* Well Society members (a 36% turnout) responded to the poll:
 
351 votes were cast for the option: I would not consider voting in support of any proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.
 
642 votes were cast for the option: I would consider voting in support of any investment proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.

 

 

Interesting results, in all honesty I was expecting a lot more to be in favour of the "I would" option. 36% of the membership saying No before they have sight of the options on the table is very telling. 

For me the most disappointing aspect is the extremely low turnout on what I'd stress is an important issue. 

The most telling stat of all is a 36% reply rate so 74% of society members couldn't be arsed to vote. That tells you all you need to know. Aject apathy from the very people invested in the club and we seriously hope to build a club that can expand and progress with that kind of interest.

 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option.

Crude assessment:

I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. 

If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. 

There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result. 

The turnout is an absolute disgrace. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option.

Crude assessment:

I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. 

If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. 

There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result. 

There's no point trying to spin it with conjecture and assumption. It's a disgraceful response , every real Motherwell fan alive would or should have known that vote was taking place and if they didn't get an invite to vote they should have contacted the Well Society. That's what I did and it took two mins with a response within an hour.