New Investment Options

[Kmcalpin]

51 minutes ago, Clackscat said:

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.

Thats my take on the situation too. The poll has highlighted serious issues which need addressed. Fortunately, the new Society Board seem to be envigourating matters. 

[steelboy]

9 minutes ago, robsterwood said:

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.

Exactly.

Also we have to be aware that any party with a controlling interest has many different options for extracting cash from the club. The Indonesian/Australian bid which is being offered supposedly involves advanced scouting software which no doubt the club would have to pay to use. It's easy enough to put money in with one hand and take it back out with another.

A good example of this is Mike Ashley at Rangers getting them to sign a merchandise deal with Sports Direct that basically robbed them of millions.

[Kmcalpin]

31 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Sadly for me this whole discussion has raised more questions than answers.......I'm not holding my breath though as each piece of the puzzle that is solved seems to lead to more questions........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.

Not for the first time Denny  I agree 100%. As a first step, if I was a disenfranchised and interested member, I would be checking my spam folder and then contacting the Society, if necessary. No doubt some contact details are also out of date. 

[Villageman]

42 minutes ago, Speedie85 said:

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. 

Sorry not my perception. No engagement by WS unless you include a reply from Sally to an email I sent that asked questions, made comments and suggestions re membership categories. 

[Clackscat]

Just looked again at the WS result e mail, 993 votes cast 36% turnout.

That equates to 2758 members entitled to vote, so even allowing for junior steel members that is still below 3800 or so members.

Am wondering therefore if there was a minimum contribution requirement to vote as queried by folks either on here or P&B, which would disenfranchise new monthly contribution members?, (hope not), or is there any other reason for the apparent numbers anomaly?

[Kmcalpin]

Just an idea  but what if the club was to issue new shares to private investors, including fans. That way the club could ensure that the Society retained overall control. In addition  the Society could implement its proposal. A win win scenario. 

[Villageman]

13 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Just an idea  but what if the club was to issue new shares to private investors, including fans. That way the club could ensure that the Society retained overall control. In addition  the Society could implement its proposal. A win win scenario. 

I think I posted elsewhere, maybe not as some of my posts appear to be missing. It was :

Pockets of share at a value of £250. Would need 2000 fans or others to reach a total of £500k.How many would do it. Based on only 1500 members contributing £10 average can't see many opting in. Plus my understanding is a similar figure could be required next year too.  

[joewarkfanclub]

59 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Where's the source for this if you don't mind me asking. How can we raise two million. Huge ask in my view given the well society fan numbers currently paying into the club. 

Posted on Pie & Bovril.

We can raise £2m by engaging with our fanbase to increase membership of the Well Society or offering shares up to a non controlling interest.

Or as I said, sell Lennon Miller.

Given our model is to develop and sell on players, then selling the entire club for the price of one transfer makes no sense.....

[Clackscat]

10 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Just an idea  but what if the club was to issue new shares to private investors, including fans. That way the club could ensure that the Society retained overall control. In addition  the Society could implement its proposal. A win win scenario. 

Sometimes the best ideas are the simplest; emotionally I value my small shareholding in the club, more than my Well Society input which has cost me far more, so I just wonder if that might appeal to those who haven't engaged with the WS.

That said I'm sure there will be legal etc barriers to overcome and I wonder just how much could be raised, and it would be a one off.

It would buy time with a cash injection, that would then give the WS time to formulate their strategy going forward  although I wonder as I write this would it make life more difficult to raise monies afterwards?

[joewarkfanclub]

19 minutes ago, Clackscat said:

Sometimes the best ideas are the simplest; emotionally I value my small shareholding in the club, more than my Well Society input which has cost me far more, so I just wonder if that might appeal to those who haven't engaged with the WS.

That said I'm sure there will be legal etc barriers to overcome and I wonder just how much could be raised, and it would be a one off.

It would buy time with a cash injection, that would then give the WS time to formulate their strategy going forward  although I wonder as I write this would it make life more difficult to raise monies afterwards?

Im already as WS Member. But I would certainly consider buying private shares from the Society to raise revenue.

Not sure what 19% would.raise, but they would retain controlling interest whilst raising cash.

Although, that would go into the Society. So maybe a share issue to dilute to 51% would be better?

[Spiderpig]

54 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Just an idea  but what if the club was to issue new shares to private investors, including fans. That way the club could ensure that the Society retained overall control. In addition  the Society could implement its proposal. A win win scenario. 

For me that's a great idea Dave, a straightforward share issue, set a price and then people can buy the amount they want, they then have the chance to have a direct input at AGM's etc without going g through a 3rd party like the WS.

For me with the limitations of our fan base asking existing contributors which from the recent numbers posted on this forum only account for about 50% of the WS members to up their monthly payments significantly is not and never will  be a viable option.

I have no interest in committing to a regular contribution to the WS but I would quite happily buy shares in the club if given the chance.

[Dossertillidie2]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

For me that's a great idea Dave, a straightforward share issue, set a price and then people can buy the amount they want, they then have the chance to have a direct input at AGM's etc without going g through a 3rd party like the WS.

For me with the limitations of our fan base asking existing contributors which from the recent numbers posted on this forum only account for about 50% of the WS members to up their monthly payments significantly is not and never will  be a viable option.

I have no interest in committing to a regular contribution to the WS but I would quite happily buy shares in the club if given the chance.

If we did a share option I for one would be onboard with that but I can’t help think we still need another society type entity to offer some level of protection with a view to being fully sustainable on drawing on neither of these entities cover option

[Dossertillidie2]

Just now, Dossertillidie2 said:

If we did a share option I for one would be onboard with that but I can’t help think we still need another society type entity to offer some level of protection with a view to being fully sustainable on drawing on neither of these entities cover option

By society type entity I do really mean a corporate/individual to give us a cushion in return for an investment in for example player sales which ultimately has to be our focus on becoming self sustainable 

[Kmcalpin]

My idea would involve a new share issue by the club so that any proceeds would go directly to the club and not the Society. That way the Society's shareholding would drop from 71%. As the current club directors can control who buys shares, then any malign actors would be excluded. Also, the Society's share would not drop below 51%. 

This might also attract some "medium scale" investors  like local business people. 

By itself, that would not be sufficient to plug our financial gap. However it might buy us some leeway and allow the Society to draw up and implement its package of proposals  

[Throughthelaces]

4 hours ago, steelboy said:

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.

When I say football people I mean people who can take the club forward in terms of on the pitch. The club needs some fresh eyes from a business and financial perspective. 
 

Tell me if we want to compete and keep hold of our better players or sign some quality players how can we do that on our current model. 

[steelboy]

7 hours ago, Throughthelaces said:

 

Tell me if we want to compete and keep hold of our better players or sign some quality players how can we do that on our current model. 

We've not been able to keep hold of our better players for the past 30 years. Lambert and McKinnon leaving on Bosmans changed everything. The question isn't about keeping hold of our better players it's about how to do we make sure we are signing enough Premiership level players every summer to sustain us.

People need to define what 'compete' actually means us for us. There is no outside investment which puts us on a level playing field financially with Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen. Our optimistic aims are always going to be Top six, grab a Euro spot and have a good cup run whether fan owned or not. 

[joewarkfanclub]

8 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

My idea would involve a new share issue by the club so that any proceeds would go directly to the club and not the Society. That way the Society's shareholding would drop from 71%. As the current club directors can control who buys shares, then any malign actors would be excluded. Also, the Society's share would not drop below 51%. 

This might also attract some "medium scale" investors  like local business people. 

By itself, that would not be sufficient to plug our financial gap. However it might buy us some leeway and allow the Society to draw up and implement its package of proposals  

This is definitely preferable to what Im reading regarding the 2 offers currently on the table (if correct) and worth exploring.

It feels to me like the club board had way too much control over the Well Society and limited its power due to the way it was implemented.

I feel as if there is scope for growth there if it is allowed to breath.

But like you say it needs time, and time needs money.

[Kmcalpin]

50 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

It feels to me like the club board had way too much control over the Well Society and limited its power due to the way it was implemented.

I feel as if there is scope for growth there if it is allowed to breath.

But like you say it needs time, and time needs money.

The club directors now need to act quickly, and in tandem with the Society. The shareholders and Society members need to be told basic details of the bids, these 2 and any others, very quickly. I do understand that some details might be commercially sensitive. In the  meantime, the Society needs to get cracking working up its proposal.

To me, there's no point whatsoever in continuing with lengthy negotiations on the leaked bid (if they are accurate) only for the Society members to chuck them out en masse. We don't want to get to the point of having to vote on detailed proposals in September, August, July or even June, only for the membership to deem them totally unacceptable. What then? The Society will need time to work up its plan. 

To those Society members against any outside bid, I'd say don't worry. I'm confident that the vast majority of those who voted in favour would reject any ridiculous offers. The recent vote is only advisory and is no way at all binding.  

[Onthefringes]

10 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Im already as WS Member. But I would certainly consider buying private shares from the Society to raise revenue.

Not sure what 19% would.raise, but they would retain controlling interest whilst raising cash.

Although, that would go into the Society. So maybe a share issue to dilute to 51% would be better?

Sorry to take this point in isolation amongst others - how much was raised the last time the idea was put into practice not so long ago?

[wellfan]

23 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

The club directors now need to act quickly, and in tandem with the Society. The shareholders and Society members need to be told basic details of the bids, these 2 and any others, very quickly. I do understand that some details might be commercially sensitive. In the  meantime, the Society needs to get cracking working up its proposal.

To me, there's no point whatsoever in continuing with lengthy negotiations on the leaked bid (if they are accurate) only for the Society members to chuck them out en masse. We don't want to get to the point of having to vote on detailed proposals in September, August, July or even June, only for the membership to deem them totally unacceptable. What then? The Society will need time to work up its plan. 

To those Society members against any outside bid, I'd say don't worry. I'm confident that the vast majority of those who voted in favour would reject any ridiculous offers. The recent vote is only advisory and is no way at all binding.  

I'm not usually one to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat, but I'm a little worried for two main reasons.

1. The longer the lack of a permanent CEO, failure to communicate appropriately, departing Chairman, and begging for investment fiasco go on at the MFC Board level, the more I question its motives, governance, decision-making, etc. I'm sure McMahon and Weir won't do anything to harm the Club deliberately to suit their interests, but mistakes and rushed deals can happen when individuals are compromised/scunnered/leaving/etc.
2. The more information we find out about the Well Society's numbers etc, the more I question its ability to undertake its function appropriately. There are many unknowns and concerns about it, which is not what we need when deciding its future role in the Club. However, that may change with the new WS board members, but it could be too late. 

Can anyone alleviate my concerns with a better perspective, or do we need a complete reset with/without the Well Society? We know the MFC Board is being reset.

For transparency, I voted against the WS losing its majority shareholding because I believe we need fan ownership as a controlling interest at the table. I am not against bringing others to that table, however, but would they want to invest for a minority stake and voice? Probably not. So, for me, it's either the WS or not now, but it doesn't look like the WS is a financially capable or well-structured enough entity at this stage to take the lead.

As I said above, though, others may be able to ease those concerns with further commentary on the reality of the overall scenario.

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, Onthefringes said:

Sorry to take this point in isolation amongst others - how much was raised the last time the idea was put into practice not so long ago?

Good point.

I dont know.

I kinda put that post up whilst thinking out loud.

On reflection a share issue diluting the WS to 51% probably makes more sense as KMcAlpin says.

Obviously wouldnt be sufficient going forward but would maybe buy the Society sufficient time to put forward and implement their own proposals whilst at the same time looking at other offers?

[joewarkfanclub]

27 minutes ago, wellfan said:

I'm not usually one to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat, but I'm a little worried for two main reasons.

1. The longer the lack of a permanent CEO, failure to communicate appropriately, departing Chairman, and begging for investment fiasco go on at the MFC Board level, the more I question its motives, governance, decision-making, etc. I'm sure McMahon and Weir won't do anything to harm the Club deliberately to suit their interests, but mistakes and rushed deals can happen when individuals are compromised/scunnered/leaving/etc.
2. The more information we find out about the Well Society's numbers etc, the more I question its ability to undertake its function appropriately. There are many unknowns and concerns about it, which is not what we need when deciding its future role in the Club. However, that may change with the new WS board members, but it could be too late. 

Can anyone alleviate my concerns with a better perspective, or do we need a complete reset with/without the Well Society? We know the MFC Board is being reset.

For transparency, I voted against the WS losing its majority shareholding because I believe we need fan ownership as a controlling interest at the table. I am not against bringing others to that table, however, but would they want to invest for a minority stake and voice? Probably not. So, for me, it's either the WS or not now, but it doesn't look like the WS is a financially capable or well-structured enough entity at this stage to take the lead.

As I said above, though, others may be able to ease those concerns with further commentary on the reality of the overall scenario.

I think the WS has had a bit of a reset with the recent elections.

A lot of younger board members with fresh ideas of how to improve things and make it better.

Together with a reset on the Board proper it feels like a great opportunity for the club to re-invent iself and make the changes necessary to move forward successfully.

[wellfan]

3 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

I think the WS has had a bit of a reset with the recent elections.

A lot of younger board members with fresh ideas of how to improve things and make it better.

Together with a reset on the Board proper it feels like a great opportunity for the club to re-invent iself and make the changes necessary to move forward successfully.

This is what I am hoping for. I don't want to lose the Society.

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Good point.

I dont know.

I kinda put that post up whilst thinking out loud.

On reflection a share issue diluting the WS to 51% probably makes more sense as KMcAlpin says.

Obviously wouldnt be sufficient going forward but would maybe buy the Society sufficient time to put forward and implement their own proposals whilst at the same time looking at other offers?

Unfortunately time or the timeline of investment interest doesn’t stack up for many. I’d say co opted board members Dickie & Feeley are complicit in this.

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

 

It feels to me like the club board had way too much control over the Well Society and limited its power due to the way it was implemented.

I feel as if there is scope for growth there if it is allowed to breath.

But like you say it needs time, and time needs money.

II know this thread was introduced to discuss possible inward investment but clearly those discussions have highlighted the role and importance of the Society. Club and Society are separate entities, but intertwined. And I write this as someone who was invested in the Society from day one, and really wanted it to be a success.

So I think the above is extremely relevant. What is the exact role of the Society and who determines what path they follow? The answers were obvious at one time but now I am not so sure. Does the Society exist to provide short term assistance to the Football Club, and the Football Club alone? Or did it become a tool of the MFC Board, providing permanent finance to not only the Football Club, but also other non core activities? As an example, and tin hat on, what are these 'special projects' for which we were told substantial Society funds were used? Finance for core Club activities or worthwhile causes such as the Community Trust. And before I get slaughtered, I'm not saying the Club should not support the Community. But I am saying that was not the intended role of the Society. The football club and the Society must concentrate on their reason for existing, particularly in such difficult economic times.

To quote some figures. I believe that in it's time the Society has raised over £2m from Members which is commendable. But of that sum, around £1.2m has gone, permanently. Fans donated to the Society with the agreement that Society funds would be provided to the Club in times of need but on a short term loan basis only. The funds to be repaid to the Society as soon as possible from transfer income, league pay outs and the like. The intention being that within 3 years the Club would be operating within its means and that Society funds would grow and be protected at all times. That has just not happened which asks questions of those running both the Society and the Club. Who took those decisions and under what pressure?

Now I get that what I have highlighted is history and we need to move on. We are where we are kind of thing. I have no doubt the new Society Board Members are striving to improve matters and return the Society to how it was intended to operate. The meetings currently taking place are a good start. Anybody standing in the way of that rebrand should not hold sway.

For me to invest further in the Society, and ultimately the Club, I need to be convinced that those changes are taking place and are permanent. I need to see a long term vision which is sustainable. Otherwise circumstances will repeat themselves.

I'm away to hide behind the settee now, tin hat on. With fingers crossed that a miracle takes place at Ibrox in a few hours.