New Investment Options

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, wellfan said:

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. 

Aye, fair point. If 1,000 members weren't able to vote because they're junior members, that does change things somewhat.

[wellfan]

Just now, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, fair point. If 1,000 members weren't able to vote because they're junior members, that does change things somewhat.

Yep. That's why a breakdown in membership figures and voting data would be helpful. 

Somebody who better understands these things might be able to look at the result alongside the membership demographic and make better sense of it all. I certainly can't. 

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, santheman said:

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.

Just re read through things and confused by something I missed from this post.

Weekly updates are being received but no vote option? So some sort of qualifying requirement that we are not aware of as santheman asks? Clearly contact details in this case are up to date so why no vote? Or as simple as different data bases used maybe?

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

I appreciate the need for was members views to be established as a matter of urgency, given the external interest. But this vote only serves to show how much work is required within the Society to ensure the next vote is more inclusive.

Also, regarding communication between Club and Society, was the Society given any heads up prior to the release of the Investment video? So they could prepare for the need for a vote if interested parties stepped forward. Or where they in the dark like the rest of us?

 

 

[sinjy]

I did not vote as I felt that the person and the offer itself would have to be assessed before deciding. A "Motherwell person" with a long history of supporting the club would be Ok with getting full control but some unknown with a shady past who would promise the earth then quit after a few years it would be a no from me.

[Kmcalpin]

12 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

I'm sure there isn't. Once you join, either by paying a £300 lump sum, or make your first Monthly payment of £3 then you're a member and entitled to vote.

My career was in town planning and we would hold a public consultation, which might attract say 3,600 responses. That equated to about 1% of those eligible to respond. Not great. A bulldozer then appears next to a village to start a new housing development and all hell breaks loose. Our reply would be you had the chance to comment but didn't its too late.

I think there's an element of that here, although as we've discussed, there are likely to be many other factors at play. 

[santheman]

14 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Just re read through things and confused by something I missed from this post.

Weekly updates are being received but no vote option? So some sort of qualifying requirement that we are not aware of as santheman asks? Clearly contact details in this case are up to date so why no vote? Or as simple as different data bases used maybe?

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

I appreciate the need for members views to be established as a matter of urgency, given the external interest. But this vote only serves to show how much work is required within the Society to ensure the next vote is more inclusive.

Also, regarding communication between Club and Society, was the Society given any heads up prior to the release of the Investment video? So they could prepare for the need for a vote if interested parties stepped forward. Or where they in the dark like the rest of us?

 

 

I don't know if there is a minimum amount of contributions to allow you a vote. I only guessed that might have been why my mate didn't get the email when he gets every other one.

As you say maybe working off different data bases or something akin to that.

He's going to contact the WS for an explanation.

[steelboy]

21 minutes ago, dennyc said:

 

I cannot believe that there is a minimum total of contributions made, £300 or otherwise, required to give folk a vote. Otherwise new recruits joining as a result of this exercise would mostly be excluded.

 

 

 

It would be crazy if they just let people buy a vote for a fiver.

£300 was the price of membership when it started so it probably still is. I'm going to email and ask for a copy of the constitution.

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

Surely though the percentage given in the email was of the people eligible to vote. The junior members will have been taken out of the equation before that percentage was calculated. 

I think the point is that we don't know and it'd be good to get clarity on that. Even if it is something that can be assumed as being the case, if it's not confirmed, or states "of those eligible to vote" in the e-mail, it's not clear.

I haven't got the e-mail as I'm not in the WS, so if anyone can confirm the wording that'd be ideal.

[texanwellfan]

Didn’t read all the posts but I think it’s fair enough to not write off any options at the moment. 

[Villageman]

We can all draw our own conclusions from this result. The information that has come to light since Investment subject was raised suggests to me that the WS has been badly mis managed in recent past..

Over the years now we have been told we have somewhere up to the 3800 members currently. The 700 supposedly Junior steel I shall ignore since I do not know the rules pertaining to them. That leaves 3100 entitled to vote of which 1660 are NOT contributing and may not have for 10 years or so. How many of the 642 voting to allow the WS percentage to be below 50% are in that category. After all if they have no interest in  supporting the WS financially what do they care where the investment comes from. I wont make any comment on members who are no longer living still being included in the 3800 total.

 

[Villageman]

58 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I completely agree. Seriously. I'm at the point where I just want someone to invest in Motherwell. The fan model isn't working right now and I support it and pay into it.  

I agree fan model is not working but the misinformation coming from the WS for years now would have you believe it is.

[steelboy]

4 minutes ago, Villageman said:

We can all draw our own conclusions from this result. The information that has come to light since Investment subject was raised suggests to me that the WS has been badly mis managed in recent past..

Over the years now we have been told we have somewhere up to the 3800 members currently. The 700 supposedly Junior steel I shall ignore since I do not know the rules pertaining to them. That leaves 3100 entitled to vote of which 1660 are NOT contributing and may not have for 10 years or so. How many of the 642 voting to allow the WS percentage to be below 50% are in that category. After all if they have no interest in  supporting the WS financially what do they care where the investment comes from. I wont make any comment on members who are no longer living still being included in the 3800 total.

 

 

The Well Society is legally an Industrial and Provident Society and each member owns 1 voting share. It's illegal not to allow members a vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_provident_society

[Throughthelaces]

I’m increasingly of the opinion that the fan ownership thing just isn’t working I think having partial fan ownership and a seat at the table and the society as a safety net/ top up for the club isn’t a bad idea. 
 

if the well society owned 35% say and the private investors own 21% that still leaves 44% that we can sell and have an owner who can maybe have a more sustainable operating model that’ll help increase the quality of player we can afford. I’d be quite happy for that.

I’d still carry on paying my monthly fee in any case. But we need football people in running the club. 

[dennyc]

2 hours ago, steelboy said:

It would be crazy if they just let people buy a vote for a fiver.

£300 was the price of membership when it started so it probably still is. I'm going to email and ask for a copy of the constitution.

Good luck

 

[Dossertillidie2]

Todays result just typifies for me why I have always felt the society model would only work for so long

when les Hutcheson extended the deadline time and time again for us to hit the min numbers required to take control the writing was on the wall for me

not saying the society doesn’t have a place but a mix of private and fan ownership is the perfect model for me 

[steelboy]

15 minutes ago, Throughthelaces said:

I’m increasingly of the opinion that the fan ownership thing just isn’t working I think having partial fan ownership and a seat at the table and the society as a safety net/ top up for the club isn’t a bad idea. 
 

if the well society owned 35% say and the private investors own 21% that still leaves 44% that we can sell and have an owner who can maybe have a more sustainable operating model that’ll help increase the quality of player we can afford. I’d be quite happy for that.

I’d still carry on paying my monthly fee in any case. But we need football people in running the club. 

It's a strange world where people who have been going to Fir Park aren't football people but an Indonesian conglomerate or an American TV company would be considered to be.

The board have said at the AGM that potential investors want the controlling interest in the club. That opens us up to selling the stadium, taking on debt and money flowing out the club to the new owners. A minority shareholding and a seat on the board won't make any difference if investors with a majority want to go down that road.

[Kmcalpin]

2 hours ago, wellgirl said:

Surely though the percentage given in the email was of the people eligible to vote. The junior members will have been taken out of the equation before that percentage was calculated. 

That's my belief.

It seems clear to me that the Society,   maybe for a totally understandable reason, decided to produce an alternative proposal at a late stage. I'd also like to know a little more about the other investment proposals, in addition to to the 2 we've been "told about". 

As a matter of priority though, the Society needs to clarify for members those who were eligible to vote. That will quash any confusion and nip any unnecessary and potentially harmful speculation in the bud. 

[Clackscat]

I have been an off and on contributor via standing order since inception and encouraged by the way the board elections were handled contacted WS  with a view to restarting my contributions. It was discovered I was entered twice on the membership list, probably because of stopping and restarting my SO before. They were able to tell me I'd contributed £700 (surprised) over these years, I think the admin issue is historical and nowt to do with how the society is run now, but it does beg questions over how diligently things have been recorded against a background of pushing for numbers.

In a way talking up the number of members has bit them on the backside as the poll percentage looks worse than perhaps it is, with Junior Steel Members and one off ex players etc. The figure of 1600? currently active contributing members is a closer indication of those 'engaged'.

  I think the lack of engagement by WS members points to a combination of lapsed members through apathy and an inaccurate membership roll, all of which should be alarming for WS.

The new initiatives and the work of the new Board members shows just what is possible and gives us a glimpse of how much better it could work, but sadly I think for a lot of folks it has come too late in the day, given there is potential for an alternative, hence the poll result.

That said I am sure like me, the majority of those who said they would 'consider' other offers would only vote for them if fully convinced of the merits of any proposal, and would be hoping the Well Society come up with  a viable alternative, so there is no way I see this week's vote as necesarily the end of fan ownership at Motherwell. I hope it galvanises the WS with renewed purpose.

[dennyc]

Sadly for me this whole discussion has raised more questions than answers. Hopefully as a result of those questions we can all get a better understanding of exactly how the Society operates, what it's aims now are and what the current situation is. Maybe even what the future holds for Society and Football Club.  I'm not holding my breath though as each piece of the puzzle that is solved seems to lead to more questions. Personally speaking, I thought the entire Society operation changed under the influence of Les Hutchison, without Member approval, and became much more secretive with communication a major issue.

in fairness, recent appointments to the Society Board have improved matters and there appears to be a determined effort by those new appointees at better fan engagement and communication. I believe that fresh outlook was badly needed. I also suspect the Club AGM and Investment discussions came sooner than they would have liked and have highlighted aspects that were to be addressed in time.

Whatever, the AGM highlighted that the Club needs Investment, and quickly, if the decline which has been evident for some time is to be halted. Maybe this is the start of a new beginning. I hope so.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

Seems to me everyone is trying to attribute their own spin on this to suit their own position.

Bottom line is we have voted to consider the options presented to us.

Im reading elsewhere that the better of the 2 offers is £2m over 6 years for a controlling share of the club.

I think thats giving away our fan ownership too cheaply. That kind of money isnt life changing and not beyond the kind of some we could potentially raise ourselves if the new WS Board are given a chance to improve the Society and what it offers the club.

Happy to see the detail and be proved wrong. But, for me, if we are giving up control of the club it should be for transformational money, not the fee we could get for Lennon Miller in the summer......

[Speedie85]

I would be keen to share with members of the Society the work we have been undertaking since the turn of the year in partnership with our members which has led to our new proposed operating structure. There are four Zoom sessions running this coming Sunday at 10am, midday, 2pm and 8pm. If you would like to join us please send me a DM with your email address.

In case you missed it here's the communication sent to all members on Monday:   

Introducing our new operating structure

Over the last six weeks we have been engaging members to understand what they want from The Well Society. They have told us what they value as members, what is working now and where we can improve in future. During these discussions five clear areas of focus have emerged. We will form five dedicated workstreams to support the development of these priorities. Each of these workstreams will be led by a board member.
 
It has been clear across all of the focus sessions that there is a desire for members of The Well Society to make a greater contribution and offer more support. As a result, we are looking to align three Society members with relevant knowledge and skills to each of the workstreams.
 
Our new focused workstreams are:
 
Communications – led by Jason Henderson
Will develop and deliver communications which give our members clarity around what we are delivering consistently across all channels
 
Events – led by Amber Johnstone
Will plan and execute a calendar of events that engages our members and enhances the visibility of the Society
 
Fundraising – led by Derek Watson
Will develop and implement fundraising initiatives that successfully drive income and cultivate our relationship with members
 
Governance – led by Douglas Dickie
Will establish and maintain robust governance frameworks, policies, and procedures that promote accountability and transparency
 
Membership – led by Sean Baillie
Will grow and engage our membership base through strategic initiatives, personalized experiences and value-added services, fostering a vibrant community
 
We know that not everyone has been able to join us at Fir Park for the initial focus group sessions. So, we are organising four sessions via Zoom to gather views from Society members throughout the day on Sunday 3 March. During these sessions we will look to present the goals, objectives and deliverables across the workstreams and ask you to share your views and feedback as we continue to refine. The sessions will run at 10am, 12 midday, 2pm and 8pm – all times GMT. 

[Kmcalpin]

8 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Im reading elsewhere that the better of the 2 offers is £2m over 6 years for a controlling share of the club.

I think thats giving away our fan ownership too cheaply.

I voted yes. However  from what I've heard and what you say, it would be a "NO" from me. A short term modest fix for long term high risk. 

[steelboy]

11 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Seems to me everyone is trying to attribute their own spin on this to suit their own position.

Bottom line is we have voted to consider the options presented to us.

Im reading elsewhere that the better of the 2 offers is £2m over 6 years for a controlling share of the club.

I think thats giving away our fan ownership too cheaply. That kind of money isnt life changing and not beyond the kind of some we could potentially raise ourselves if the new WS Board are given a chance to improve the Society and what it offers the club.

Happy to see the detail and be proved wrong. But, for me, if we are giving up control of the club it should be for transformational money, not the fee we could get for Lennon Miller in the summer......

£333,000 a year for 6 years for the controlling interest of the club. Utterly ridiculous.

If this is true and McMahon and Weir are genuinely pushing for it then serious questions need to be asked.

[robsterwood]

4 minutes ago, steelboy said:

£333,000 a year for 6 years for the controlling interest of the club. Utterly ridiculous.

If this is true and McMahon and Weir are genuinely pushing for it then serious questions need to be asked.

That's really cheap and underwhelming. Yes we shouldn't give away more than 10 percent of or that price. We got potential for more. There also maybe rich well fans that I would trust more that may come forward.

[Casagolda]

1 hour ago, Dossertillidie2 said:

Todays result just typifies for me why I have always felt the society model would only work for so long

when les Hutcheson extended the deadline time and time again for us to hit the min numbers required to take control the writing was on the wall for me

not saying the society doesn’t have a place but a mix of private and fan ownership is the perfect model for me 

We already have a mixture of Private and Fan ownership.

Around 30% of the club is own outside of the Well Society.

If the numbers going around are true then it is way off the value of the club.