New Investment Options

[FirParkCornerExile]

28 minutes ago, weeyin said:

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.

 

Aye but he gave control to a Muppet 

[steelboy]

I felt it was a poorly worded question. The 'no investment' option was phrased as being permanently binding and the 'investment' option was completely vague. 

Phase 1 of McMahon and Weir's PR operation(still need to find out who paid for it) to end fan ownership has been successful but they will need to be more honest and open going forward. There seems to have been a big effort to protect the identity of the American investor while the Australian one has been more public. I'm guessing phase 2 will be more scare stories about auditors and introducing the Americans. At the moment it's not even clear if they are talking about an individual buying us or a TV production company. 

The main outcome of this vote is that we won't have a CEO in place anytime soon so expect our squad building to become even more of a farce. 

[wellfan]

18 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

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.

I agree that the turnout is poor. I offered some context regarding the reality of the membership demographic to demonstrate one potential reason for the low turnout, of which there will be many.

[StAndrew7]

People do realise that this is just a vote to consider proposals which give up fan ownership, right? Like, there will be another vote for all of the club's shareholders, including the society and private shareholders for or against any proposed takeover? Granted, the WS holds the majority by a long distance and it will vote as a block, but still.

This isn't a done deal, at all. This might, in a way, galvanize those that didn't vote to sit up and take notice. I hope it does.

And before any chirps up, I will always vote against any proposal that gives up fan ownership (for the record, I'm a private shareholder, not a WS member. Yet.)

The turnout is appalling, frankly. That speaks to a few things, I guess. The question was ambiguous, people who didn't get the e-mail not requesting one, apathy in general, the quick nature of the turnaround etc. etc.

You'd have to think that if we do get to the stage of there being a proposed investment, that there would need to be a certain level of turnout for the Well Society Board to be able to say that it truly represents the feelings of its members?

[dennyc]

35 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The turnout is an absolute disgrace. 

 I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details.

The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully every Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, dennyc said:

 I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details.

The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully ever Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

Whoever ran/set up the poll in whatever package (I assume SurveyMonkey or the like) should have all that data available; delivery success, open rates, link clicks, all of it should be there.

[wellfan]

7 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

People do realise that this is just a vote to consider proposals which give up fan ownership, right?

Some probably don't, but this indicative vote may well awaken others and increase the turnout in the event of any binding vote. 

[StAndrew7]

Just now, wellfan said:

Some probably don't, but this indicative vote may well awaken others and increase the turnout in the event of any binding vote. 

Aye, that's what I was hoping for/mentioned later in my post. I really hope it does. Like, how can the WS Board vote its 72% block of shares with less than 50% of the membership voting? That's not a realistic majority for something as crucial as the sale of the club.

[FirParkCornerExile]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, that's what I was hoping for/mentioned later in my post. I really hope it does. Like, how can the WS Board vote its 72% block of shares with less than 50% of the membership voting? That's not a realistic majority for something as crucial as the sale of the club.

For the simple reason , no one side can claim no voters, if people don't vote their opinion is not considered. It's that simple. A majority is a majority that is democracy , arbitrary thresholds are things politicians like to use when they don't like the answer they are likely to get. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid. 

You are correct that is democracy and how democracy works, arbitrary thresholds are for corrupt politicians.

[Casagolda]

10 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid. 

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about?

Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

[dennyc]

2 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Whoever ran/set up the poll in whatever package (I assume SurveyMonkey or the like) should have all that data available; delivery success, open rates, link clicks, all of it should be there.

Not savvy enough to know what all that means but if the info is available it might help us to understand some of the reasons for such poor numbers.

2 hours ago, Dee said:

 

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. 

 

As we see on here regularly though, stats can be interpreted in many ways. I could argue that two out of  three people who responded saying 'I would' without having sight of the options on the table is just as telling. 

[Kmcalpin]

18 minutes ago, dennyc said:

 I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details.

The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully every Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

I take several things from the results. A quick calculation shows that the adult membership (all those entitled to vote) is approximately 2,760;the rest being juniors.  As I understand it, all those adults who are paying monthly or have put in lump sums were entitled to vote. To me the low response rate is very concerning and is the main conclusion I draw from the results. Why is that? Is every member contactable by email? Some may not be. I also suspect that there are errors in the membership database - not all down to the Society.  I can't quantify them. Some would not understand the wording of the question, as it was a bit woolly, as others have said.  Apathy - yes. 

I voted yes, but have no knowledge whatsoever of the 2 actual offers. I may well change my mind once I find out the details (in fact I probably will).  

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, Casagolda said:

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about?

Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

I find it hard to believe there were society members who didn't know there was a vote. If they didn't they must live in a bubble away from all social media about Motherwell and all family and friends who go to the games. 

[Kmcalpin]

5 minutes ago, Casagolda said:

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about?

Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

Some truth in that. The consultation did seem rushed.

[Throughthelaces]

You were never going to get 100% of the fan base or society voting on this. We’re a niche of a niche most motherwell supporters aren’t on fan forums and wondering about the day to day operations at the club or investment. Same with most clubs most fans are a go to the home games or the home games they can maybe a cup final if the club gets there and then you have the more active support. More active support tends to be the ones who spend time on fan forums and wonder about the running of the club and sustainability. 
 

an example is in my own house I’m very active in my support a Saturday isn’t a Saturday if I’m not at the match, I listen to the pressers and read the opinions on here and share the odd one here and there. I pay my money to the society, I even went as far as to think about the vote for a day or two before submitting my decision.

 

my partner on the other hand comes to the games and enjoys the game and that’s her done with it until the next week and If I didn’t go to the away games she wouldn’t independently go to those. I imagine most of the support is the same at most clubs.  
 

so I’m not surprised at the turn out being just below a thousand. That’s almost 1/4 of our average home attendance which is about level with what I’d expect. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said:

I take several things from the results. A quick calculation shows that the adult membership (all those entitled to vote) is approximately 2,760;the rest being juniors.  As I understand it, all those adults who are paying monthly or have put in lump sums were entitled to vote. To me the low response rate is very concerning and is the main conclusion I draw from the results. Why is that? Is every member contactable by email? Some may not be. I also suspect that there are errors in the membership database - not all down to the Society.  I can't quantify them. Some would not understand the wording of the question, as it was a bit woolly, as others have said.  Apathy - yes. 

I voted yes, but have no knowledge whatsoever of the 2 actual offers. I may well change my mind once I find out the details (in fact I probably will).  

I wasn't contacted and if id had locked myself in a cupboard I wouldn't have known there was a vote. However as a supporter I heard about it from everyone and their granny who are Motherwell supporters and it was also on social media and in the print media. I therefore assumed correctly the WS didn't have my correct details so contacted them by email as we were asked to do. I got a reply within an hour giving me the link to vote. I find it incredible that would have bee so difficult for the majority of society members.

[wellfan]

Just now, FirParkCornerExile said:

I find it hard to believe there were society members who didn't know there was a vote. If they didn't they must live in a bubble away from all social media about Motherwell and all family and friends who go to the games. 

As I said in my earlier post, there are 1600 members who don't financially contribute anymore. It seems reasonable to suggest that some of those members may not be as engaged with the WS, or bothered, as those on the forums and social media are. That's why I've referred to that category of members as ‘silent’. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

3 minutes ago, wellfan said:

As I said in my earlier post, there are 1600 members who don't financially contribute anymore. It seems reasonable to suggest that some of those members may not be as engaged with the WS, or bothered, as those on the forums and social media are. That's why I've referred to that category of members as ‘silent’. 

I can't agree your assumption. If people are members they must be more engaged than people who are not just by the sheer action of joining. If they didn't care that wouldn't be members. Before anyone starts I'm not suggesting non members do not care but this discussion is about people  people who are members and couldn't be bothered to vote I really find it beyond credible WS members didn't know there was a vote happening.

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Aye but he gave control to a Muppet 

That's pretty standard in the club ownership business. The other model is for the owner themselves to run it into the ground.

[weeyin]

7 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

I can't agree your assumption. If people are members they must be more engaged than people who are not just by the sheer action of joining. If they didn't care that wouldn't be members. Before anyone starts I'm not suggesting non members do not care but this discussion is about people  people who are members and couldn't be bothered to vote I really find it beyond credible WS members didn't know there was a vote happening.

Maybe they didn't care one way or the other.  I don't remember seeing an "Either" option.

[FirParkCornerExile]

12 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Maybe they didn't care one way or the other.  I don't remember seeing an "Either" option.

That's perfectly possible, but I still think the turnout reflects badly on a group within the clubs support no matter how we dress it up care about the club. To not care either way shows a level of indifference that is really at the crux of our problems as a fan owned club and perhaps explains why no matter how successful we are on the pitch our home support never goes north of 4500. 

[wellfan]

40 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

I can't agree your assumption. If people are members they must be more engaged than people who are not just by the sheer action of joining. If they didn't care that wouldn't be members. Before anyone starts I'm not suggesting non members do not care but this discussion is about people  people who are members and couldn't be bothered to vote I really find it beyond credible WS members didn't know there was a vote happening.

Consider this. I joined the RSPB a few years back when I was particularly enthused by ornithology. I’m not that bothered about it at the moment due to life being busy, which means I generally glass over the member emails and campaigns, but I am still a member and still pay my monthly direct debit. I occasionally go to their nature reserves at the weekend, but, if they put out a member poll asking to vote on the ownership of a nature reserve, I'd probably ignore or miss it. 

Returning to the WS, many of the 1600 non-paying monthly members likely became members by paying a lump sum at the beginning of the WS many years ago. Many of those members may now be, for example, deceased, emigrated, or disinterested. The latter is the most likely. 

A key aim of the WS Board should be figuring out a strategy to better enagage those in the 1600 category. It should focus on getting those (still alive) to activate a monthly direct debit. Something like that could increase our monthly paying adult member base to c.3000. Put simply, stating the membership is at 3800 doesn't tell the full story when 1600 are non-paying and 700 are kids. 

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid. 

I get that, but my point isn't about the vote that's just happened. That is done and dusted and valid and it should be honoured.

My point is about my concerns with any future vote regarding the future of the club and any sale to an outside investor; if less than 50% of the Well Society vote in any poll regarding the sale of shares, or purchase of or whatever, does that in any way constitute a majority of the membership?

Would the WS Board then need to put into action the results of a vote which regards anything from the sale of the club, sale of some of the WS stake, or agreeing to outside investment and does that, in corporate law/takeover requirements, constitute a valid vote to support any legal requirements to be able to vote as a block of 72% of the club.

Sorry that's a bit of a word salad but I'm typing quickly before having to jump into a meeting.

[wellfan]

5 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

if less than 50% of the Well Society vote in any poll regarding the sale of shares, or purchase of or whatever, does that in any way constitute a majority of the membership?

Linking to what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, I think it would be important to understand what percentage of the 3800 members are eligible/able to vote before the true turnout figure is understood/calculated following any future binding vote.