New Investment Options

[wellfan]

People aren't trying to influence others here. Those who have taken the time, or had the time, to read and consider the details of both the Club's press release on the proposals and the Well Society's response are expressing their informed opinions. Vote as you like, but at your (the Club's) peril. 

[wellup83]

We have to look beyond the money here. The Barmacks are and were never going to be a sugerdaddy to the club, bankrolling us with millions of pounds year in year out. What this is is an opportunity to open new avenues to selling the club home and abroad with the purpose of generating new fans and investment in a safe and sustainable way. The Barmacks have the knowledge and platforms to do just that. With the welfare and assets of the club protected and safeguarded I don't see what we've got to lose. 

[StAndrew7]

Having calmed down a bit after my initial outrage with this offer, there are a few things that initially stick out for me:

Barmack has said he's already been approached by a TV channel about a docu-series based on the club; great! Let's do that and prove that the business model/ideas that he has works and then start to talk again, but without McMahon at the top.

The fact the WS are being put in the position of potentially draining their cash reserves (the very reserves the Chairman said were needed every year to guarantee the operations of the club) to support buyback of shares in 2 years time (as well as continue to add to the club at £100k/year), should, in my eyes, be a big red flag.

As should EB immediately receiving 3 seats and chairmanship with the casting vote of the Executive Board after taking 8% of the shares for £300k. It's pure folly.

[GawnUpBy?]

13 minutes ago, Throughthelaces said:

I’ll vote for it for the simple reason I love the club and want a competitive team on the field. I’m also unhappy with how directionless the club has been since burrows left and how long our search for a CEO took. If I’m honest I’d be surprised if the well society are voted out but I do want it to be a close enough vote they maybe start getting serious and making changes to our footballing operations for the better.

Do you reckon we’re going to turn into prime Barcelona after Barmacks initial 300k? Wake up. 
 

The club has been directionless because of one man. Jim McMahon. 
 

I was going to say he single-handedly held the club back for years, but his cronies Feely & Dickie have had a say in things too. 

[Kmcalpin]

10 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

People can vote as they please but if the well society are saying no to this - then do they have their own proposal? Sure it was said a couple of months ago they were working on one. Folk need to vote as they see fit. I haven't looked at the statement yet but I'm not going to be voting yes or no based on what the well society think or be influenced over what folks on social media think. 

100% agree.

Rather naively, I assumed that both proposals would be made available at the same time.

[robsterwood]

Is there a counter offer from Well society to Barmacks?

[FirParkCornerExile]

Just now, wellfan said:

People aren't trying to influence others here. Those who have taken the time, or had the time, to read and consider the details of both the Club's press release on the proposals and the Well Society's response are expressing their informed opinions. Vote as you like, but at your (the Club's) peril. 

or not as the case may be. An automatic assumption that saying Yes will result in the club going out of business is nonsense and the assumption that staying with the WS will never see us like ICT is also nonsense. There are no certainties and never will be and that's why its such a difficult choice for many. 

[StAndrew7]

5 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Having skimmed through Jim McMahon's statement and the Well Society email, I'm equally baffled by both, for different reasons. I raised the issue of potential conflict of interest some time ago, but no one bar a couple of posters (and they know who they are) seemed to think it an issue.

I'm going to have to take some time to digest things better than the skim I just gave them, but would be interested in your thoughts. They're both (tonally, anyway) very different. One paints it as a grand opportunity for the club, the other very much doesn't, both for obvious reasons.

Is anyone else drastically disappointed with how the details have been announced? Like, I understand the need to get things out there, but as a shareholder I'd have expected far more than just a post in the website inviting me to e-mail the club with questions.

[robsterwood]

Just now, FirParkCornerExile said:

or not as the case may be. An automatic assumption that saying Yes will result in the club going out of business is nonsense and the assumption that staying with the WS will never see us like ICT is also nonsense. There are no certainties and never will be and that's why its such a difficult choice for many. 

Wrexham make 430 k from each episode. Surely we could find talent/ producers and get it done ourselves.

[Throughthelaces]

3 minutes ago, GawnUpBy? said:

Do you reckon we’re going to turn into prime Barcelona after Barmacks initial 300k? Wake up. 
 

The club has been directionless because of one man. Jim McMahon. 
 

I was going to say he single-handedly held the club back for years, but his cronies Feely & Dickie have had a say in things too. 

Again I said in my post I don’t expect the deal to go through but I do want to signal to the well society that they’ve been very poor in terms of running the club we should be in a position where if we go down we should be able to sustain full time football by now. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

6 minutes ago, robsterwood said:

Wrexham make 430 k from each episode. Surely we could find talent/ producers and get it done ourselves.

If we could why have we not done it before? This is the WS big problem , they apparently can come up with something better now, but why has it taken so long? what have they been doing for years, what investment opportunities have they identified  or been working on all the time we've been a fan owned club.  

 

 

[ropy]

5 minutes ago, Throughthelaces said:

Again I said in my post I don’t expect the deal to go through but I do want to signal to the well society that they’ve been very poor in terms of running the club we should be in a position where if we go down we should be able to sustain full time football by now. 

Could you do that with an email?

[Spiderpig]

5 minutes ago, Throughthelaces said:

Again I said in my post I don’t expect the deal to go through but I do want to signal to the well society that they’ve been very poor in terms of running the club we should be in a position where if we go down we should be able to sustain full time football by now. 

Who came up with this idea that the WS actually run the club, from a non members view it seems they just give the club cash when asked, without question and basically do as they are told, this alleged deal seems like business as usual for them

[Electric Blues]

14 minutes ago, wellup83 said:

I don't see what we've got to lose. 

[robsterwood]

2 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

If we could why have we not done it before? 

Does take a bit of cash or know how. Suppose we could do it on cheap. 1  person and camera man Louis Theroux style.

[StAndrew7]

6 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

If we could why have we not done it before? This is the WS big problem , they apparently can come up with something better now, but why has it taken so long? what have they been doing for years, what investment opportunities have they identified  or been working on all the time we've been a fan owned club.  

 

 

It's taken so long because the previous board was dominated by people who weren't interested in doing much of anything other than giving the club cash when it was needed. The fundamental reason for the WS' existence changed when the deal with Les was signed and that brought about the stagnation we've seen. That's been well commented on/discussed on here over the last few months.

The new WS Board have said they'll accelerate the launch of their own proposal off the back of this announcement; I think we have to give it due consideration when it's released and use that to help inform whatever decision we make when voting because despite it not really being sold as this, this is fundamentally a vote for, or against, fan ownership, at least over the next 2 years whilst the buyback is still an option.

[David]

22 minutes ago, wellup83 said:

With the welfare and assets of the club protected and safeguarded I don't see what we've got to lose. 

Safeguarded, for now. There's no mention of what happens to said assets after the initial six years have passed, and the Barmacks effectively control 49% of the club, and Erik has the deciding say on tied matters.

At that point any agreement made now could be completely changed.

[steelboy]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

It's taken so long because the previous board was dominated by people who weren't interested in doing much of anything other than giving the club cash when it was needed. The fundamental reason for the WS' existence changed when the deal with Les was signed and that brought about the stagnation we've seen. That's been well commented on/discussed on here over the last few months.

The new WS Board have said they'll accelerate the launch of their own proposal off the back of this announcement; I think we have to give it due consideration when it's released and use that to help inform whatever decision we make when voting because despite it not really being sold as this, this is fundamentally a vote for, or against, fan ownership, at least over the next 2 years whilst the buyback is still an option.

I thought you were against anything that resulted in the Well Society having less than 51%?

The idea that Barmack's offer has to be compared against the new Well Society plan is idiotic. His offer is pish and massively undervalues the club. If he's lowballing us when he needs us to vote for him what do people think he's going to do  when he's in full control?

 

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, David said:

Safeguarded, for now. There's no mention of what happens to said assets after the initial six years have passed, and the Barmacks effectively control 49% of the club, and Erik has the deciding say on tied matters.

At that point any agreement made now could be completely changed.

Absolutely, and as @steelboy has rightly pointed out, there's nothing to stop Barmack from purchasing other private shareholders' stakes to increase his own. His letter mentions selling his own stake down to bring in additional investment BUT there's no guarantees that's what will happen.

[steelboy]

1 minute ago, David said:

Safeguarded, for now. There's no mention of what happens to said assets after the initial six years have passed, and the Barmacks effectively control 49% of the club, and Erik has the deciding say on tied matters.

At that point any agreement made now could be completely changed.

He'll get 49% from a share issue. There's absolutely nothing stopping him from buying 1%-2% from a private investor and taking majority control.

[StAndrew7]

7 minutes ago, steelboy said:

I thought you were against anything that resulted in the Well Society having less than 51%?

The idea that Barmack's offer has to be compared against the new Well Society plan is idiotic. His offer is pish and massively undervalues the club. If he's lowballing us when he needs us to vote for him what do people think he's going to do  when he's in full control?

 

I still am (although I've probably said somewhere in the past 51% fan ownership as well)?

I haven't said anywhere I'm in favour of what's been proposed, very much the opposite; the point I'm making (probably badly, I'm still pissed off) is that if people are undecided on it based on what's been released today, they should wait to read what the WS are proposing to help inform whatever decision they want to make.

Edit: having re-read what I posted, I can see how you got there.

For clarity; this can get in the fucking sea where it belongs (in my opinion).

[David]

When we get right down to the brass tacks here, what we're effectively doing is giving away majority control of the club to someone for less than £2 million.

If that's what some fans value the club at, then that's fair enough. I think it's laughable, though.

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, David said:

When we get right down to the brass tacks here, what we're effectively doing is giving away majority control of the club to someone for less than £2 million.

If that's what some fans value the club at, then that's fair enough. I think it's laughable, though.

Devils advocate here. Would you accept it if it cost the investment team £2 million to buy but generate additional £1/£2 million a year revenue excluding player sales.

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Devils advocate here. Would you accept it if it cost the investment team £2 million to buy but generate additional £1/£2 million a year revenue excluding player sales.

Not for me.

Fan ownership is the line in the sand.

[David]

1 minute ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Devils advocate here. Would you accept it if it cost the investment team £2 million to buy but generate additional £1/£2 million a year revenue excluding player sales.

Is that what's being offered? I haven't seen any concrete business plan to suggest that?