New Investment Options

[Kmcalpin]

Anybody enrolled for tomorrow's meetings? I've done so for the 10 am one. 

[El Grew]

On 3/1/2024 at 1:21 PM, Dee said:

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

Agreed and based on the outcome it seems that about 2/3 of Well Society members didn’t care enough to vote. However you would need to try and canvass them to try to ascertain their reasons for not voting before jumping to any conclusions.

[grizzlyg]

Can't make 10 am one but hopefully the 12.00 one

[Spiderpig]

15 hours ago, wellgirl said:

If they can afford it. This is the issue for me. I can afford to give to the well society but probably wouldn't be able to afford shares. That's just me though and my own financial situation 

It all depends what price the shares would be offered at plus buying the shares would be a one off payment and not the ongoing commitment month on month to the WS so it's potentially cheaper.

[Kmcalpin]

Shares have changed hands for about £10 each in recent years. I think the club sets the price.

[Onthefringes]

2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Shares have changed hands for about £10 each in recent years. I think the club sets the price.

Were 5 times that amount at last offering

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, Onthefringes said:

 

[joewarkfanclub]

9 hours ago, wellgirl said:

Have the well society said they want to put forward a proposal? 

Yes they have.

[joewarkfanclub]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

I didn't see that anywhere. Do you have a link? I'm a member but didn't see it in email as far as I'm aware 

No links.

But information will be incoming shortly.

[joewarkfanclub]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

I didn't see that anywhere. Do you have a link? I'm a member but didn't see it in email as far as I'm aware 

No links.

But information will be incoming shortly.

[Stuwell2]

On 3/1/2024 at 3:45 PM, 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).  

Agree with you on the low response, it’s disappointing. A few members may have changed their email address and not notified the society, a few may have sadly passed away, some people may have put money in who aren’t fans but liked the idea of a fan owned club and feel they shouldn’t make decision on the future of the club but added up that’s not enough to make a difference.
The apathy concerns me as like you I voted yes so that no opinion’s were taken off the table but I’m definitely not in favour of giving up on fan ownership and hope that between now and - if - an offer is put before us then the society will try to check that they have the correct and updated details of as many members as possible. 
min not in favour of having the board members standing at games looking for the members as this could lead to them being abused by members/non members. 

[Kmcalpin]

Thanks to Philip and Jay yesterday. I attended the morning Zoom meeting. Its fair to say that the Society had stagnated in recent years. It seems the recent elections have rejuvenated the Board and there's now a wind of change. blowing. I have new found confidence that the Society Board can come up with a workable proposal but it will need members' backing and assistance.    

[Kmcalpin]

Just received a Society email this morning. I'm glad to hear that we're having a Society event on the day of the St Mirren game. Strike while the iron is hot as they say. 

There will be a bucket collection but it's being undertaken by the Society on behalf of the Community Trust. Now I may be in a minority of one here, but although I support the Trust 100%, surely on this particular occasion it should be to boost the coffers of the Society itself? Especially so, given financial concerns articulated at the Club AGM and the need to back a Society proposal with hard cash. 

[Stuwell2]

On 3/9/2024 at 3:32 PM, Kmcalpin said:

…There will be a bucket collection but it's being undertaken by the Society on behalf of the Community Trust. Now I may be in a minority of one here, but although I support the Trust 100%, surely on this particular occasion it should be to boost the coffers of the Society itself? Especially so, given financial concerns articulated at the Club AGM and the need to back a Society proposal with hard cash. 

I’m thinking that possibly by raising money this way it allows the society to have to give less to the trust therefore it’s indirectly beneficial for the society’s bank balance without being seen to be shaking the bucket for themselves. 

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, Stuwell2 said:

I’m thinking that possibly by raising money this way it allows the society to have to give less to the trust therefore it’s indirectly beneficial for the society’s bank balance without being seen to be shaking the bucket for themselves. 

The WS are the majority shareholder at the club ffs organising bucket collections to raise funds is not good optics. As a one off for a specific purpose yes but any more than that and it's begging bowl territory. Unless the WS suddenly gets a few thousand more contributing members, they are probably at the limit of how much cash they can raise, a very limited fan base results in a very limited cash flow.

[Stuwell2]

28 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

The WS are the majority shareholder at the club ffs organising bucket collections to raise funds is not good optics. As a one off for a specific purpose yes but any more than that and it's begging bowl territory. Unless the WS suddenly gets a few thousand more contributing members, they are probably at the limit of how much cash they can raise, a very limited fan base results in a very limited cash flow.

Agree with your sentiments and probably the WS board does too, which is why I suspect they’re having a collection for the community trust to save them having to be seen to give the trust money directly. 
If this raises £2000 for the trust then it’s £2000 that the WS doesn’t need to give them. 

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, Stuwell2 said:

I’m thinking that possibly by raising money this way it allows the society to have to give less to the trust therefore it’s indirectly beneficial for the society’s bank balance without being seen to be shaking the bucket for themselves. 

I take your point but it begs the question as to why The Society has possibly been donating funds to the Trust in the first place. That is not why the Society was created. Worthwhile cause that the Trust undoubtedly is, my understanding is that the role of the Society is to generate funds for emergency use by the Football Club when required. And I believe fans contribute on that understanding. If fans wish to contribute directly to the Trust then all credit to them. I hope they do. 

IF, and I repeat IF, funding  has been provided to the Trust or elsewhere can someone confirm the total sum involved over the years and also confirm who decided such funding was proper use of fan contributions. Are we talking £100s or £1000s? 

The more I read, the more it concerns me that (in the past?) undue pressure may have been put on the Society Board to finance expenditure beyond the remit of the WS. From the figures provided previously, there appears to be over £1m of subscriptions gone forever. Members are entitled to know where those funds went. Especially as they will likely be asked to increase subscription amounts.

 

 

 

[Kmcalpin]

9 hours ago, dennyc said:

I take your point but it begs the question as to why The Society has possibly been donating funds to the Trust in the first place. That is not why the Society was created. Worthwhile cause that the Trust undoubtedly is, my understanding is that the role of the Society is to generate funds for emergency use by the Football Club when required. And I believe fans contribute on that understanding. If fans wish to contribute directly to the Trust then all credit to them. I hope they do. 

IF, and I repeat IF, funding  has been provided to the Trust or elsewhere can someone confirm the total sum involved over the years and also confirm who decided such funding was proper use of fan contributions. Are we talking £100s or £1000s? 

The more I read, the more it concerns me that (in the past?) undue pressure may have been put on the Society Board to finance expenditure beyond the remit of the WS. From the figures provided previously, there appears to be over £1m of subscriptions gone forever. Members are entitled to know where those funds went. Especially as they will likely be asked to increase subscription amounts.

I agree with what you say Denny. I emailed the Society on Sunday to query why the bucket collection was in support of the Community Trust and not the Society.

The answer I received was that the theme of the day is that MFC is a club for everyone and the Society wanted to help celebrate the great work that the Community Trust does, and to encourage its members to think of donating to them (the Trust) as a local charity. The Society hopes to  get lots of people signed up, or rejoining on the day, which will be worth more to it in the long run than a one off collection.

Now, thats laudable in principle, but to me, is contradictory to what is happening right now in terms of working up an investment proposal. I don't undertand how getting more fans to sign up or rejoin on the day is mutually exclusive with a bucket collection in aid of the Society. Lets be clear, a bucket collection on its own will not make a huge difference financially. The impression that I have, maybe wrongly in fairness, is that the club needs an injection of significant investment by October. That news alarmed me and possibly many others. Many of us want the Society to plug any hole with its its own proposal, which it is working up as I type.  Given this situation, many members, like me, have restarted monthly subs or increased them and quite a few new members have joined this call to arms, specifically to help it financially. At this time, the Society cannot afford to ignore any potential source of cash, however modest.  I believe that every penny counts just now. I just find it odd that the Society will be raising funds for a sister organisation at this particular time, when it is in need itself.   

[Jay]

4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

I agree with what you say Denny. I emailed the Society on Sunday to query why the bucket collection was in support of the Community Trust and not the Society.

The answer I received was that the theme of the day is that MFC is a club for everyone and the Society wanted to help celebrate the great work that the Community Trust does, and to encourage its members to think of donating to them (the Trust) as a local charity. The Society hopes to  get lots of people signed up, or rejoining on the day, which will be worth more to it in the long run than a one off collection.

Now, thats laudable in principle, but to me, is contradictory to what is happening right now in terms of working up an investment proposal. I don't undertand how getting more fans to sign up or rejoin on the day is mutually exclusive with a bucket collection in aid of the Society. Lets be clear, a bucket collection on its own will not make a huge difference financially. The impression that I have, maybe wrongly in fairness, is that the club needs an injection of significant investment by October. That news alarmed me and possibly many others. Many of us want the Society to plug any hole with its its own proposal, which it is working up as I type.  Given this situation, many members, like me, have restarted monthly subs or increased them and quite a few new members have joined this call to arms, specifically to help it financially. At this time, the Society cannot afford to ignore any potential source of cash, however modest.  I believe that every penny counts just now. I just find it odd that the Society will be raising funds for a sister organisation at this particular time, when it is in need itself.   

Just wanted to jump on to address this point - I understand why there's a perception that the club needs an injection of significant investment by October, but I think it's important just to add the context to that. If the club finishes 10th without any player sales or cup runs (so, essentially, worst case scenario without going down), there's a gap in the finances in 18 months time of around £750k. It's my understanding that this has essentially been the case for the last couple of years, it's only really being discussed now as a result of the investment video & resulting negotiations that everyone is aware of.

The Well Society has around £750k in reserve so, at the moment, it could be argued that, if we were to finish 10th with no cup runs & no player sales, the Society would already be in a position to meet that shortfall in 18 months time. Of course, that doesn't eradicate the ongoing problem but I think it does at least add a little more context to the situation we're in. In addition, if we finish higher than 10th, that £750k is naturally reduced. And if things go very well in the next few games & we - as unlikely as it seems - make the top six and/or sell Lennon Miller (or Theo Bair!) suddenly the £750k isn't just reduced, it's potentially eradicated for a number of years.

The idea of October as a deadline is a result, I believe, of the need for the club to demonstrate to the SPFL at that point that it can meet its obligations (ie. fixtures) for the following 18 months. It's obviously very difficult to ascertain what that will look like in practice, because by October some of the things I've suggested above could happen - or, of course, we could still be relegated - but I think at this stage there's a genuine hope that, between the potential of a strong end to the season, at least one very sellable asset, and the Society's cashflow, we could do that even without external investment before that point. That's something that might have to be achieved regardless because, as mentioned before, even if we all wanted rid of fan-ownership, there's still a real possibility that the external investment doesn't materialise for a variety of different reasons (including Society members just voting against it).

So yeah, in short, hopefully that adds a little more flesh to the bones around the idea that the club needs an injection of significant investment by October. Simply put, there's a lot of moving parts and, given the model the club operates under & has done for many years (in terms of league position & selling assets), there's still a big question mark around what October even looks like in financial terms. The absolute worst case scenario is needing significant external investment by the date but there are outcomes, however, where that is not necessarily the case. How likely those outcomes are is entirely open to personal opinion I'd imagine.

As for the bucket collection, I have to say I've not been involved in the plans for Well Society Day - other than offering my time on the day - so I can't really comment there.

[dennyc]

Thanks for the update Jay. And for highlighting that the potential funding gap in October is a worst case scenario, but something that has to be planned for. Makes perfect sense.

But as for the other point, and acknowledging that the bucket collection is a relatively minor matter, can you clarify whether Society monies have been/are being utilsed to support worthy causes such as the Trust or have been/are being provided for projects that the Football Club wished carried out?  And if so, to what extent and who authorises that expenditure? There is a sizeable gap between the Balance you quote above and the total received from Members to date. 

I keep coming back to the reason the Society was established in the first place (as a safety net) and to the fairly narrow purposes any funds ingathered were to be used. I appreciate that may be looked upon as history, but as fans and Members are being asked to dig deeper, then I believe they are entitled to know where their contributions are likely to end up. It is one thing providing security for our football Club  (a Contingency Fund for emergency use only), but an entirely different thing supporting charitable causes or funding what might be looked upon by some as non essential projects. Have the lines between Club and Society Funds become blurred?

[weeyin]

I think there is (or was) something in the charter about donating 10% of Society funds to charitable causes, but maybe one of the Board can confirm if that's still in play.

I'm more concerned about losing majority ownership, tbh, because if that happens I'm not sure where I stand when it comes to my contributions.

[Jay]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

Thanks for the update Jay. And for highlighting that the potential funding gap in October is a worst case scenario, but something that has to be planned for. Makes perfect sense.

But as for the other point, and acknowledging that the bucket collection is a relatively minor matter, can you clarify whether Society monies have been/are being utilsed to support worthy causes such as the Trust or have been/are being provided for projects that the Football Club wished carried out?  And if so, to what extent and who authorises that expenditure? There is a sizeable gap between the Balance you quote above and the total received from Members to date. 

I keep coming back to the reason the Society was established in the first place (as a safety net) and to the fairly narrow purposes any funds ingathered were to be used. I appreciate that may be looked upon as history, but as fans and Members are being asked to dig deeper, then I believe they are entitled to know where their contributions are likely to end up. It is one thing providing security for our football Club  (a Contingency Fund for emergency use only), but an entirely different thing supporting charitable causes or funding what might be looked upon by some as non essential projects. Have the lines between Club and Society Funds become blurred?

I just wrote a rather large reply to this & then lost it so hopefully I manage to remember everything again...

This is absolutely the kind of thing that should be accessible & transparent though.

I can only really speak for the time I've been involved in the Society, since early 2017, but when I joined the board, the club was still very early on in the "repay Les Hutchison's loans" journey. You may remember that, at the time, there was the Double Your Money campaign, where every penny raised by the Society would see Les cut his loan by the same amount. However, also part of the loan agreement, was that the Society would put - if memory serves - around £130,000 into the club on an annual basis (in the form of loans).

This effectively meant that, as a result of the Les Hutchison loans to the club, the model of the Well Society changed from being that contingency fund to investing in the club on a yearly basis.

Alongside that, there is also the reality that, albeit infrequently, there may be the odd situation where the majority shareholder is asked to invest a sum in the club for a genuinely important reason. The example I'd maybe use to flesh that out a little would be if there was an injury crisis in January & the playing budget was already maxed out, would an owner elsewhere be able to reduce the chances of relegation by increasing that budget slightly to cover a target? And if so, should the Society do likewise? As I say though, very much not a regular occurrence by any means.

Beyond that, in more recent years, there has been a process in place to allow parts of the club to apply to the Society for a sum of funding. The funding is capped & an application has to be submitted that details what the funding is for, what the benefit is, and why the funding can't be sourced elsewhere. The Society Board has to agree as a majority to accept any of those applications, and a number have been rejected during my time. Those that have been accepted are usually publicised at the time, the defibrillator outside the ground & a couple of youth teams travelling to Ireland to take part (and win) a cup competition spring to mind. The sums spent on successful applications are small in relation to the kinds of big sums we're talking about and even then, the Society Board would point blank refuse any application if the club itself was in any sort of financial trouble or it just wasn't viable or deemed as worthwhile.

And then there's the usual admin fees, other expenses, and the staff salary that the Society pays on an annual basis. I am not aware of any ongoing funding of or donations to the likes of the Community Trust, outwith any requests they've had regarding funding in the past that we've possibly agreed to.

That for me is a - albeit second attempt - rough outline of the Society's financial approach as I understand it. There's no doubt that the model of the Society switched during those years following Les Hutchison but, in more recent years, there's been a conscious effort to switch back to the original model, hence the ability to build up £750,000.

All that said, if you're looking for more specific figures, I would absolutely contact the Well Society by e-mail. None of this should be a secret.

[dennyc]

54 minutes ago, Jay said:

I just wrote a rather large reply to this & then lost it so hopefully I manage to remember everything again...

This is absolutely the kind of thing that should be accessible & transparent though.

I can only really speak for the time I've been involved in the Society, since early 2017, but when I joined the board, the club was still very early on in the "repay Les Hutchison's loans" journey. You may remember that, at the time, there was the Double Your Money campaign, where every penny raised by the Society would see Les cut his loan by the same amount. However, also part of the loan agreement, was that the Society would put - if memory serves - around £130,000 into the club on an annual basis (in the form of loans).

This effectively meant that, as a result of the Les Hutchison loans to the club, the model of the Well Society changed from being that contingency fund to investing in the club on a yearly basis.

Alongside that, there is also the reality that, albeit infrequently, there may be the odd situation where the majority shareholder is asked to invest a sum in the club for a genuinely important reason. The example I'd maybe use to flesh that out a little would be if there was an injury crisis in January & the playing budget was already maxed out, would an owner elsewhere be able to reduce the chances of relegation by increasing that budget slightly to cover a target? And if so, should the Society do likewise? As I say though, very much not a regular occurrence by any means.

Beyond that, in more recent years, there has been a process in place to allow parts of the club to apply to the Society for a sum of funding. The funding is capped & an application has to be submitted that details what the funding is for, what the benefit is, and why the funding can't be sourced elsewhere. The Society Board has to agree as a majority to accept any of those applications, and a number have been rejected during my time. Those that have been accepted are usually publicised at the time, the defibrillator outside the ground & a couple of youth teams travelling to Ireland to take part (and win) a cup competition spring to mind. The sums spent on successful applications are small in relation to the kinds of big sums we're talking about and even then, the Society Board would point blank refuse any application if the club itself was in any sort of financial trouble or it just wasn't viable or deemed as worthwhile.

And then there's the usual admin fees, other expenses, and the staff salary that the Society pays on an annual basis. I am not aware of any ongoing funding of or donations to the likes of the Community Trust, outwith any requests they've had regarding funding in the past that we've possibly agreed to.

That for me is a - albeit second attempt - rough outline of the Society's financial approach as I understand it. There's no doubt that the model of the Society switched during those years following Les Hutchison but, in more recent years, there's been a conscious effort to switch back to the original model, hence the ability to build up £750,000.

All that said, if you're looking for more specific figures, I would absolutely contact the Well Society by e-mail. None of this should be a secret.

Thanks Jay. I appreciate the prompt and comprehensive response. You more or less confirm what I thought might have been the case over the years, although until now any approach for clarification had little success. The transparency and communication now being shown is a much needed, refreshing step forward.

The news of an agreement to provide Motherwell FC with £130k on an annual basis is a surprise however and I suspect not many Members were aware that such an arrangement existed? My comment on the history of it all is that at no time do I recall Members being asked to support the operating change which you confirm took place or of being advised of the annual £130k arrangement, both of which combined considerably deplete Society Funds. 

Looking forward, it is good to hear there is an effort being made to revert to something approaching the original model. The growth of a Reserve Fund to assist the Club in time of need, preferably on a Loan basis, being the intent. With that in mind, is the annual £130k provision to continue and has any of the original funding been repaid or possibly written off? That is something Members should be aware of when considering whether to dig deep.......or deeper.

Personally, I have no real objection to limited funds being made available to assist with one off projects that benefit the Club or football development. That said,  I don't think that any such funding should be allowed to get out of hand and quite honestly the Club needs ASAP to return to the situation where those projects can be completed without the aid of the Society. It cannot be the case that the Football Club come to rely on that annual input from the WS. And the blurring of lines between Society, Trust, Football Club priorities and finances needs looking at.

Thanks

[Jay]

34 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Thanks Jay. I appreciate the prompt and comprehensive response. You more or less confirm what I thought might have been the case over the years, although until now any approach for clarification had little success. The transparency and communication now being shown is a much needed, refreshing step forward.

The news of an agreement to provide Motherwell FC with £130k on an annual basis is a surprise however and I suspect not many Members were aware that such an arrangement existed? My comment on the history of it all is that at no time do I recall Members being asked to support the operating change which you confirm took place or of being advised of the annual £130k arrangement, both of which combined considerably deplete Society Funds. 

Looking forward, it is good to hear there is an effort being made to revert to something approaching the original model. The growth of a Reserve Fund to assist the Club in time of need, preferably on a Loan basis, being the intent. With that in mind, is the annual £130k provision to continue and has any of the original funding been repaid or possibly written off? That is something Members should be aware of when considering whether to dig deep.......or deeper.

Personally, I have no real objection to limited funds being made available to assist with one off projects that benefit the Club or football development. That said,  I don't think that any such funding should be allowed to get out of hand and quite honestly the Club needs ASAP to return to the situation where those projects can be completed without the aid of the Society. It cannot be the case that the Football Club come to rely on that annual input from the WS. And the blurring of lines between Society, Trust, Football Club priorities and finances needs looking at.

Thanks

In terms of the precise annual figure, it was roughly in that ballpark. It may have been close to £120,000, but essentially the majority of the funds raised on an annual basis went into the club as a loan. The loan to the club remains & hasn't been written off.

Just also to clarify, the Society putting cash into the club on that annual basis ended when Les was paid off. It no longer happens. Instead, the majority of members pledges remain within the Society finances, which thankfully allows us to now be in a position to highlight that £750,000 we have. I imagine things would be a lot more negative regarding the Society's ability to be the majority shareholder going forward if there was the prospect of a £750,000 gap in 18 months, and we had a few quid.

And on the point around whether the arrangement with Les was communicated to members or not, I can only play the massive cop-out card & say that was before my time, so I genuinely have no idea how members were informed about that, if at all (I say that as someone who was a member at the time but has obviously forgotten).

[dennyc]

5 minutes ago, Jay said:

In terms of the precise annual figure, it was roughly in that ballpark. It may have been close to £120,000, but essentially the majority of the funds raised on an annual basis went into the club as a loan. The loan to the club remains & hasn't been written off.

Just also to clarify, the Society putting cash into the club on that annual basis ended when Les was paid off. It no longer happens. Instead, the majority of members pledges remain within the Society finances, which thankfully allows us to now be in a position to highlight that £750,000 we have. I imagine things would be a lot more negative regarding the Society's ability to be the majority shareholder going forward if there was the prospect of a £750,000 gap in 18 months, and we had a few quid.

And on the point around whether the arrangement with Les was communicated to members or not, I can only play the massive cop-out card & say that was before my time, so I genuinely have no idea how members were informed about that, if at all (I say that as someone who was a member at the time but has obviously forgotten).

Thanks Jay. Good news that the annual funding agreement ran out when Les was repaid. Hopefully when we sell Theo for £10m, the Club will be in a position to repay their debt to the Society. Making that a priority would certainly boost the Society bank balance. Onwards and upwards.

Appreciate your openness throughout this thread