New Investment Options

[David]

4 hours ago, MelvinBragg said:

What if the majority of Society members disagree with the board? Not that I think it's the case, but for such a big issue surely members have to have a vote..?

Who mentioned that the wider membership wouldn't get a vote on this? It's already been announced that a two-week ballot will open on 1st July. That is your vote.

4 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I agree. The well society have told members from the outset there's going to be a vote - so what's the reason not to have one now? 

See above? Who has said there won't be a vote?

5 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I'm not here to go in on the well society board. I just think that it's obvious that some fans don't want the vote just incase others vote yes. And that's not a good enough reason to get the vote binned. 

I don't think anyone has been transparent enough with the fans. And I think we should have been spoken to before Ben Banks.

I also think that if the society don't agree with the timescale then just say it. Fans are being asked to respond to an email. This has nothing to do with the election or the euros or the summer holidays. 

The level of transparency has largely been influenced by the NDAs that are undoubtedly in effect, or at least were during the executive board's initial discussions with Barmack.

Regarding the interview with Ben Banks, it serves as a means for the Society Board to communicate information and their perspectives to the fans. How else would you suggest they do this? Several board members have participated in the forums, including this one, and they are always accessible via email or PM here or on P&B.

[David]

26 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

People on pie and bov are saying that the deal has been binned and it's going back to the drawing board - because they've managed to persuade EB they don't want his deal - and I completely get that that's just a forum like this is - but that's what's been said by more than one poster over a couple of days. The jist is that they don't trust fans to vote no. So the deal has to be torched.

Any changes to the deal or future plans will likely be announced through official channels, rather than on an internet forum.

I wouldn't give much credence to what's said here or there; it's all just opinions.

[SteelmaninOZ]

4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

You're not the only one San. 🤣

And that’s a fact 😉

[David]

27 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

It's a bit stronger than that over there - you're right. But I don't like the dynamic. Which seems to be that they've persuaded Erik to bin the deal because they don't trust the rest of us to vote no.  

I'm not quite sure where you've gotten that impression. Erik has a chance to get a top-flight football club for next to nothing. He's going nowhere until he's actively voted against.

28 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

People need to be allowed to make their own minds up. I might not agree with everyone elses point of view - but I'll defend their right to have it - even if it doesn't align with mine.

That's true. However, I fail to see any genuine benefit in this deal that would justify relinquishing control. In my view, any fan willing to vote in favour of this either doesn't fully understand how the deal is structured or values the club so little that they consider it almost worthless.

As I said before, and I don't apologise for repeating it:

The plan that has been suggested at the moment, from what I can see, basically consists of the following:

• Barmack "invests" £1.95 million over six years. For this, he will receive 49% ownership, with 8% ownership from the beginning
• The Well Society has to invest £1.35 million over six years. For this, we will lose 25% of our shares.
• Barmack also becomes Chairman with the deciding vote in any tie.

So, he invests £1.95 million to see an increase in shareholding to the tune of 49%, while we, the fans, invest an additional £1.35 million to lose 25% of our shareholding. 

I've never been involved in any business deal where that kind of thing is suggested. Ever. Why? Because it's ridiculous. In any normal business setting, it would be laughed out of the room, and the party suggesting it would be roundly ridiculed. 

Oh, and on top of the above, we also need to agree to write off 50% of our loan to the club to the tune of £434,000. That is money that fans, including pensioners and people who are not well off, have paid to the Society in good faith, by the way. 

Almost half a million pounds of our money, just written off. Gone. 

So, with all of that said, what do we get in return? 

A multi-page business plan that shows why we need him on board? An exciting vision of the future under his chairmanship?

No.

We get talk of "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects rather than short-term player acquisitions" and incredibly vague chit-chat about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence."

Do you want to know what I think?

I think that the above would be considered derisory by any competent board in the world of business. 

But, Barmack has found a well-run entity that's involved in a league that is looking at an uptick in TV and sponsorship money coming over the next five or so years and has realised it's "fan-run."

Which, in the mind of an investor and businessman from Los Angeles, as the club board keep describing him, means that it's run by simple folks who won't understand all the technicalities and who, in his likely view, are simply too fucking stupid to understand exactly what all this means. 

He wants the club on the cheap, and not only that, he wants us to actually pay for much of it. If you add in the money The Society would be losing on top of the contributions we'd need to make, it would actually mean that our total financial contribution over the six years would be £1,784,000 for the privilege of losing 25% of our shares, while he contributes £166,000 more than us over the same period for an increase in 48% of shareholding.

You want an honest assessment? He thinks we're mugs. And sadly, going by some of the responses I've seen, he's correct to an extent. I always feared that while fan ownership is a good thing, it does leave us open to business predators who simply see an asset that is owned by a large group of people who, for the most part, aren't business-savvy. 

32 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I'll also say that I've given money to the well society when I've had the square root of eff all to spare - so anyone who thinks I don't believe in fan ownership (not aiming this at you) really doesn't know me very well. 

So, if you’ve contributed money to the Well Society when you had virtually nothing to spare, you surely can’t be pleased with the idea of an “LA-based millionaire” coming in and demanding that nearly half a million pounds of OUR money be written off as a condition for his investment.

All in the name of, as he puts it, "a clean balance sheet."

 

[StAndrew7]

19 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

It's a bit stronger than that over there - you're right. But I don't like the dynamic. Which seems to be that they've persuaded Erik to bin the deal because they don't trust the rest of us to vote no. 

I don't think that's quite what people are saying.

The reason Barmack said he'll come back is the (quite vociferous in some cases) feedback and discussions he's received and had with posters there. That and the Society Board's statement on Monday. The conversation about the concerns re: the vote etc. came after he'd stated he'd come back with a revised offer/structure.

He's also said that he's concerned it'll be a pyrrhic victory if he does win currently, as it will likely split the fan base; he doesn't want to win this at all costs. Believe him or don't but that's what he's said on there.

I think there is (rightly) a concern on both P&B and here that they are both, to an extent, echo chambers. The deal as it stands is absolute dugshite; for the reasons we have all discussed over the last 5 days and the Society has laid out.

I think the majority of posters on here and P&B will have a far greater understanding of the proposal now thanks to discussions and work done by others to work through the valuations etc. 

I would argue that a fair chunk of the support who will have a vote via the WS, don't have that level of understanding and will see £2m investment and the chance of a TV deal and potentially take a punt.

Now, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, nor do I think either board or the posters on it are superior to the other or to fans who don't post on either, but you can absolutely argue that those who post on here and P&B will be better informed than those who don't. So, being honest, I think that there is reason to be concerned that this will get voted through in its current form if it comes to that.

Also, all of what @David just said, too.

[Well-Made]

I have stayed quiet since the details were sent out from the Well Society.

My first thoughts on the email started with the first line with them advising us to reject the offer, that isn't for them to decide what I do.

I also read the statement from the Club.

From there my thoughts turned to why do we have two vastly different opinions here and which one gains/loses the most.

You could read the email from the WS and feel like it's throwing the toys out of the pram because it loses control of the club but didn't they have a vote that resulted with the members saying they'd consider losing the majority if the deal was right? That is up to us members to have our individual thoughts on it, find out any information we need and decide.

Then you see that Dickie and Maureen Downie resign from the board for differences, so why hasn't the 3rd person that voted against not resigned?

Why has Dickie not confirmed his resignation from the Exec Board?

So we have in fighting on the WS, contempt apparently between the Exec Board towards the WS, so how can we possibly decide which statement is best for the club.

I have been on P&B and read all the posts from EB and those that try to have a conversation with useful information (trying to ignore the likes of Busta, being Busta that we all know and love  )

I have been encouraged by the fact that EB has taken on points from those conversations and is looking at not binning the offer but readjusting it slightly, whether that is enough to persuade folk it's the right or not will be up to them.

We also have still to see what the WS has proposed to raise extra funds.

When the football game came out, my thoughts were that they should have auctioned the places off rather than a set price, maybe this was done to make sure they covered their costs and made some money but in a time of cost of living crisis, the auction may have allowed other folk a chance. However, I was glad to see that those that did take part had fun.

From the start pf the week where I was probably a definite no, I may be sliding nearer to a maybe if EB can get the adjustments right. Or the WS show they have something to encourage they can finance the club better in the future.

However, if the WS do stay in control, the Exec Board need to acknowledge that and work properly with them not only as a failsafe but as a genuine part of running the club, so that may need the likes of Jay (only using that name as I don't the others, although I assume Amber has some of her Dad in her views to MFC) being on the board and making sure it's running to look after the club, finances and fans correctly.

Probably one of my longer posts in a while, but if you haven't already, I'd suggest going on P&B and looking at the discussions between EB and Vietnam91 particularly amongst others.

 

 

[Kmcalpin]

9 hours ago, David said:

In my view, any fan willing to vote in favour of this either doesn't fully understand how the deal is structured or values the club so little that they consider it almost worthless.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in this post, David, I think this statement is somewhat arrogant and patronising. I'm old enough and ugly enough to have been there and done this myself, to my regret. You might disagree with fellow Well fans as I sometimes do, but please don't denigrate them. Some fans may have opposite, but perfectly legitimate and sincerely held, views to you.

[steelboy]

1 hour ago, Well-Made said:

 

From the start pf the week where I was probably a definite no, I may be sliding nearer to a maybe if EB can get the adjustments right. Or the WS show they have something to encourage they can finance the club better in the future.

 

 

 

Firstly we are one of very few clubs to operate at a profit since the Well Society so we are financed just fine. During the same period our budgets have increased significantly as well: in 2019 the club spent £4m on wages, now it's up to £5m. The idea we need a new financial model is McMahon's lies to get the club out of the hands of the fans.

Secondly what kind of adjustments would it take to get you to vote for Barmack?

[MelvinBragg]

11 hours ago, David said:

Who mentioned that the wider membership wouldn't get a vote on this? It's already been announced that a two-week ballot will open on 1st July. That is your vote.

I was replying to a post (and I think quoted it) that suggested the proposal was so bad that there was no need for a vote, the Society Board should just reject it. I wasn't suggesting there wouldn't be one...

[steelboy]

13 minutes ago, MelvinBragg said:

I was replying to a post (and I think quoted it) that suggested the proposal was so bad that there was no need for a vote, the Society Board should just reject it. I wasn't suggesting there wouldn't be one...

It's questionable whether there is. Have the Society taken legal advice on whether it's appropriate to hold this vote? If they haven't then the board members are not taking their responsibilities seriously. I'll hopefully get an answer for this next week.

I've asked a question about the Society valuation of the shareholding by email and on here. No answer yet which is fair enough as it's a busy period but to me it's a simple question and one that the Society board should have been prepared for prior to all this going public on Monday.

As I've said and a few other have also pointed out it's a bad sign that we have Society board members complaining about the timing of a Society vote. If they didn't chose the timeframe who did? 

[Well-Made]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

Firstly we are one of very few clubs to operate at a profit since the Well Society so we are financed just fine. During the same period our budgets have increased significantly as well: in 2019 the club spent £4m on wages, now it's up to £5m. The idea we need a new financial model is McMahon's lies to get the club out of the hands of the fans.

Secondly what kind of adjustments would it take to get you to vote for Barmack?

I am aware that we have made profit since the WS have taken over but a lot of that was down to the sale of DT. We need similar to happen more frequently so we can have the money to invest where and when we want it. I am not for one minute saying that EB's money will make that difference.

However if we can get him on board with the WS retaining 51% and a reduction of the money the WS have to put in or to buy the club back, then that would be a start.

I support the WS and it's aims, I believe the club should be fan owned. However, before this investment talk came about we had heard nothing from the WS on how they were going to increase funds that it holds or needs to help the club grow.

So yes, I can see why people say being fan owned isn't working but if we can get a deal that is right and someone with fresh ideas and replace the current Exec Board, I'd be happy to consider it.

[steelboy]

1 minute ago, Well-Made said:

I am aware that we have made profit since the WS have taken over but a lot of that was down to the sale of DT. We need similar to happen more frequently so we can have the money to invest where and when we want it. I am not for one minute saying that EB's money will make that difference.

However if we can get him on board with the WS retaining 51% and a reduction of the money the WS have to put in or to buy the club back, then that would be a start.

 

He's not going to agree to the Well Society keeping 51% because he wants control over the club's finances. It's clear reading his post on P&B that he want to use the club to develop AI marketing tools and the money he puts in is basically going to be invested into doing that. There's a good chance the money the Well Society puts in will also go towards paying for that.

Also the Well Society shouldn't be paying a penny to have their shareholding reduced. That's the stupidest part of the proposal. We pay so he can take over. The fact that he is even suggesting it tells you he's not trustworthy. 

At the moment we have a fan model which gives us long term security over our vital assets and has over 7 years delivered an overall profit, financial stability, stadium improvements and an increasing player budget. To give up that to hand control to guy with no experience of business in the UK or Scotland, no experience in football and who's primary interest is Artificial Intelligence marketing tools which we are to be the guinea pig for is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MENTAL.

This is only has a chance because of the way it's being framed. The Well Society's track record seems to have been completely discarded and there is an impossible demand being made to find new ways to finance the club. Barmack who appeared on the scene 6 months ago seems to be considered as trustworthy as our democratic fans group with 3000 members. Even the Society board can't make their own case without talking about how great a guy Barmack is which is pathetic. Ordinary working people generally like to find solutions via compromise. Rich people don't as we have seen with Barmack saying he won't move on valuation. The danger we are facing here is people deciding that the reasonable thing to do will be to go with Barmack's second offer as a compromise in some misguided sense of fairness and finding a middle ground.

 

 

 

[StAndrew7]

25 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

So basically we had a situation this week where a very small number of supporters told EB his deal was rotten and to shove it and he's going to revise the offer. 

If a new deal comes out of this that is more acceptable fair enough -but there's supposed to be a legally binding vote taking place in a couple of weeks. Has anyone actually thought through how that happens now that EB has said there's going to be a revised offer? Does he mean that the offer will be revised if the vote is no? 

I assume that he'll have to go back to the MFC board and the Well Society too? 

I completely agree that it's wise for EB to want the well society on side rather than opposed. 

No, we didn't.

We had a situation this week where a number of supporters and the elected representatives of thousands of Motherwell fans said that via a public statement, in which they recommended their members reject it and provided their reasons for doing so. That's a very different thing.

(Aside/general comment: that isn't the WS Board "telling" their members to vote no, it's them doing their jobs as board members and presenting their position to their membership with a recommendation that anyone can choose to take on board or not).

I imagine EB will go back to the Exec Board, suggest new terms and renegotiate them with them. The club statement on Monday/early next week will no doubt cover that and how it impacts on the process, vote etc.

If a new/revised deal is then tabled, I would anticipate/expect it going to both the Exec Board and WS for their consideration, yes.

I asked him if his initial offer was his he all and end all and he said he didn't know,l and that he'd not really thought about it yet. I imagine he will have over the last few days, at least. He's seemingly open to revising certain things/negotiating but by how much, only time will tell I guess.

Edit: the other thing to acknowledge here is that the WS is now down a member on the executive board, with the only one left having voted in favour of the first offer, so we can probably assume he won't truly represent the views of the WS Board in any negotiations. That's a proper minefield, right now.

[StAndrew7]

9 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

OK. That's completely fine if the revision has happened because of the way the well society board feel and how EB feels about their statement...

But that isn't the way that some posters on pie and bov are putting it across. There's been more than one post that indicated that the deal was going to be torched because of the discussion that took place on the forums earlier in the week - hence me asking. I have seen some of the chat but there is an awful lot to wade through. Thanks for the clarification. 

As with everything posted on a forum, a big pinch of salt is required to be taken when reading threads etc. Individual posters will clearly want to think they've played a part in it (and given the detailed feedback and discussions that have been had, I would suggest some have) but it's absolutely not just all about them.

[Stuwell2]

On 6/14/2024 at 12:53 AM, StAndrew7 said:

It's something around a single entity owning 75% and legal issues around that with the structure of the Well Society, or something along those lines. Bit of a murky legal area I believe but I'm no expert.

Did the society not sell a % of shares to private individuals around that time?

Was this possibly part of the reason for the sale?
I’m sure it was said at the time that it was to raise funds/some people were willing to put money into the club but not through the society so this was a way of getting money in without seriously diluting the WS shareholding’s. 

Re club valuation could we not work out the valuation of the club at that time if we know the % sold and the amount raised? This could help inform us if the valuation’s are drastically different or similar.  

[David]

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in this post, David, I think this statement is somewhat arrogant and patronising. I'm old enough and ugly enough to have been there and done this myself, to my regret. You might disagree with fellow Well fans as I sometimes do, but please don't denigrate them. Some fans may have opposite, but perfectly legitimate and sincerely held, views to you.

What I would ask is for anyone who supports the Barmack deal to explain their thinking. Surely that isn't too much to ask? I’ve seen plenty of detailed explanations on why the deal isn’t favourable. Where’s the counter-argument? Perhaps I'm missing something, and there’s incredible value in this deal that justifies giving up the fan ownership we’ve worked so hard to achieve.

We had three Well Society board members vote in favour of the deal. Where are they? Why aren't they explaining why they voted that way? Surely if they believe it's the way forward, they'll tell us why? 

I’m not denigrating anyone; I’m simply being honest. If it appeared that way, then I can only apologise. But the future of our club is at stake here, and what I won’t apologise for is asking difficult questions or making unpopular statements. I genuinely want someone who intends to vote in favour of or is considering voting in favour of, this deal to explain their views. I want to understand why they believe it represents value and is worth nullifying almost half a million pounds of contributions from people who, for the most part, cannot afford to lose that money. I deeply value and respect the hard-earned contributions of our fans, and I believe they deserve a thorough explanation.

I also believe it’s important to point out that Barmack may see the club as being run by people he can easily sway. 

People saying, “Well, at least he’s taking time out of his busy schedule to speak to us online,” need to understand that he’s doing this because he wants to facilitate a deal where he acquires a top-flight football club and all that it offers for very little financial input.

5 hours ago, wellgirl said:

As for the board not being business savvy - there are two people on the board who run their own business. There's someone who works in financial services. One of the board members who was voted onto the board last summer ran and made statements that their business experience was what they would be bringing to the board. 

Theyve also voted to reject apart from Feely and Dickie.

I wasn't talking about the Society board. I was referring to the wider membership. I genuinely believe he is actually shocked by the response he has received online and the number of educated, savvy replies his nonsense has attracted.

He revealed his plan when he said he was still confident the deal would go through because he only needs 75% to vote in favour, and he doesn't believe that a majority of Society members are on these forums and thus aren't reading the responses and arguments against his deal.

He is relying on articles and headlines like this to push the deal through. Phrases like "ex-Netflix boss" and "Hollywood business tycoon" make him sound like a big deal.

I mean, surely a "business tycoon" and "ex-Netflix boss" knows what's best, right? I genuinely believe he assumed that we mere mortals would be grateful that he was coming in to help save our supposedly troubled club.

[cambo97]

2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

No, we didn't.

We had a situation this week where a number of supporters and the elected representatives of thousands of Motherwell fans said that via a public statement, in which they recommended their members reject it and provided their reasons for doing so. That's a very different thing.

Technically it was only the personal opinion of the representatives as they didn't/don't know the opinions of the  "thousands of Motherwell fans " at that time. Although I suspect the board split is similar to the overall split of the thousands of Motherwell fans

[StAndrew7]

9 minutes ago, cambo97 said:

Technically it was only the personal opinion of the representatives as they didn't/don't know the opinions of the  "thousands of Motherwell fans " at that time. Although I suspect the board split is similar to the overall split of the thousands of Motherwell fans

That's essentially what I said, or was trying to say. They were giving their opinion based on their elected status, the Society membership voted for them to be their representatives. The membership then gave them their mandate; consider anything that involves investment in the club, including giving up the Society's majority share. The board said quite clearly thereafter that they would give their opinion on any offer and then put it to the vote.

They are always open to hearing the views of their membership and I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been canvassing members they know and also receiving significant volumes of feedback directly. I believe the interview with Speedie and Derek said they'd be looking to host Society meetings to discuss things.

[David]

3 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

I imagine EB will go back to the Exec Board, suggest new terms and renegotiate them with them. The club statement on Monday/early next week will no doubt cover that and how it impacts on the process, vote etc.

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead.

In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors.

Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense.

The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

 

[StAndrew7]

49 minutes ago, David said:

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead.

In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors.

Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense.

The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

 

Preach!

[David]

12 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

It's a bit late for that given that there's been negotiations already with an outside investor.

Not at all. These circumstances have arisen due to negotiations with the investor. This situation has highlighted a clear governance issue at the club.

13 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There surely should have been protocols in place so that the two members on the well society board who were also on the MFC board couldn't vote against the majority wishes. 

You could be right. However, considering that Society board members are expected to support and champion fan ownership, it could theoretically be expected that they would normally look to kick such a derisory offer into touch, as the majority of the Society board voted to do. At the very least, they should respect the Society and its members enough to take the decision of the Society board to the executive board level.

It’s also possible that they didn’t do that for the following reasons:

I’ve read that while Caldwell and Lindsay have been added to the executive board, they haven’t been given voting rights yet. If that’s true, then the voting members of the executive board are McMahon, Dickie, and Feely.

This means that if Dickie and Feely had voted according to the Society board’s decision, McMahon would have been the only one voting in favour of the proposal, resulting in it being rejected by both the executive and Society boards.

However, by Dickie and Feely voting based on their personal opinions rather than the Society board’s decision, the narrative changes completely. Instead of both boards rejecting the proposal, it appears that the executive board unanimously accepted it, while the Society board voted to reject it.

Even with Caldwell and Lindsay having voting rights, the vote would have gone in favour by 3 votes to 2, which is much closer than a "unanimous" verdict, completely changing the optics of the situation.

At best, they treated their fellow Well Society board members with utter contempt. At worst, they were acting for nefarious reasons, as outlined above.

20 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I'd be interested to know if the Well Society backed the initial call for outside investment and tbh I don't think anyone is giving fans answers just now - answers that we clearly deserve. 

What questions are you looking for answers to?

[santheman]

3 hours ago, David said:

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead.

In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors.

Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense.

The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

 

We've also got a new CEO on the executive board who I imagine will do what his new bosses tell him rather than what he thinks himself.

I say that assuming he has voting rights.

[steelboy]

It's just more of the usual throwing accusations at the Society while trying to derail any talk about Barmack's game.

She's been playing a stupid game since January DM'ing most of the regular posters on the board and posting constant sob stories about injuries, hospital stays and being skint. Very strange behaviour from a new poster who appeared right at the time of the bid.

[steelboy]

22 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Im not a new poster. I've had this account on here for over  15 years. And with respect. Anything I've spoken to people about in private on here has nothing to do with you. I didn't just appear at the time of the bid. I'll happily drop out of this thread though. 

Aye you registered on the first day the site was created then started posting every day 15 years later as soon as Barmack appeared on the scene. 

Totally normal account.

[David]

2 hours ago, steelboy said:

It's just more of the usual throwing accusations at the Society while trying to derail any talk about Barmack's game.

She's been playing a stupid game since January DM'ing most of the regular posters on the board and posting constant sob stories about injuries, hospital stays and being skint. Very strange behaviour from a new poster who appeared right at the time of the bid.

Let’s keep things civil; there’s no need for personal attacks. Your contributions to this discussion have mostly been very insightful.

Let’s maintain that standard.