New Investment Options

[David]

40 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said:

I’m failing to see why someone would invest to get a “share of the revenue generated”. What does that even mean.

Example 1: Technology Firm - Advanced Scouting Software

Investor: Tech Firm Specialising in Player Scouting Software

Investment: £50,000 per annum over three years, plus free software for the club

Implementation:

• The tech firm provides advanced scouting software.
• Software is integrated into the club’s scouting operations.
• Training provided for scouts and coaches to utilise the software effectively.

Outcome and Benefits:

For Motherwell FC:

• Improved player recruitment based on data-driven insights.
• Potential to secure promising player signings leading to better team performance.
• Savings on scouting costs due to the efficiency of the software.

For the Tech Firm:

• A compelling case study demonstrating the effectiveness of their software in a professional football setting, allowing them to then sell their software to other football clubs as an alternative to current scouting software.
• Enhanced visibility and credibility in the sports technology market.

Example 2: Health Tech Company - Injury Prevention Technology

Investor: Health Tech Company Offering Wearable Devices for Injury Prevention

Investment: £30,000 per annum over five years, plus provision of wearable devices for the team

Implementation:

• Deploy wearable devices during training sessions and matches to collect data and analyze injury risks.
• Tailor training programs based on insights to reduce injuries and improve player health.

Outcome and Benefits:

For Motherwell FC:

• Notable decrease in training-related injuries, keeping key players fit and available.
• Improved player performance and longevity.
• Potential cost savings on medical treatments and player rehabilitation.

For the Health Tech Company:

• Revenue Split: 70% of savings from reduced injury costs to Motherwell FC, 30% to the health tech company.
• Valuable data and feedback to refine and enhance their product.
• Strengthened market position with a successful implementation in professional sports.

[weeyin]

20 minutes ago, Peter Millar said:

I have some queries on your hypotheticals

Who meets the cost of maintaining the pitch, ensuring it’s clean and safe for each let. Who pays the utility bills and what are these costs because that will eat significantly into any profits.

I’m your star player, and I don’t want my data shared because I or my agent is doing a separate deal with the sports data company, or just because it is protected by GDPR.

What happens if I invest £500k in new equipment and facilities for Academy and the Academy produces zilch. How do I get a return on my investment?

For the pitch, the maintenace costs come out of the rental fees. The return on investment percentage comes after costs paid. 

For the data, players obviously already have it in their contracts given the Opta stats that is available for a fee. 

If you invest 500k and get zero return from the academy, that's tough luck. Any investor knows returns are not guaranteed and the rate of return factors in that risk. A 50% return implies higher risk. 

But given I made these up inside 60 seconds, I'm sure some actual thought could be given to more watertight scenarios.

It's hardly a unqiue situation for businesses to partner with sports teams for some kind of return. 

[prideoflanarkshire]

David with all respect, this example seem full of hypotheticals:

why would a tech company pick us over all the other clubs?

where have the figures came from? no company is going to give away income of £150k in both cases. 
 

I love Motherwell but if you were wanting to showcase your produce you would try for a worldwide know club. 
 

30% of the saving on injuries that’s just nonsense 

 

[weeyin]

35 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said:

None of that sounds great at all…

we are now offering free advertising, percentages of our transfers, part of our end of year profits, some of the revenue from renting out our facilities all to try and gain investments. 
 

I do look forward to reviewing the business plan in the forthcoming days. 

So how does it stack up to EB's proposals and how he plans on getting his return on investment?

[weeyin]

3 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said:

David with all respect, this example seem full of hypotheticals:

why would a tech company pick us over all the other clubs?

where have the figures came from? no company is going to give away income of £150k in both cases. 
 

I love Motherwell but if you were wanting to showcase your produce you would try for a worldwide know club. 
 

30% of the saving on injuries that’s just nonsense 

 

Accies received hundreds of thousands in partnerships and I'd argue we are higher profile than them. 

[Peter Millar]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Example 1: Technology Firm - Advanced Scouting Software

Investor: Tech Firm Specialising in Player Scouting Software

Investment: £50,000 per annum over three years, plus free software for the club

Implementation:

• The tech firm provides advanced scouting software.
• Software is integrated into the club’s scouting operations.
• Training provided for scouts and coaches to utilise the software effectively.

Outcome and Benefits:

For Motherwell FC:

• Improved player recruitment based on data-driven insights.
• Potential to secure promising player signings leading to better team performance.
• Savings on scouting costs due to the efficiency of the software.

For the Tech Firm:

• A compelling case study demonstrating the effectiveness of their software in a professional football setting, allowing them to then sell their software to other football clubs as an alternative to current scouting software.
• Enhanced visibility and credibility in the sports technology market.

Example 2: Health Tech Company - Injury Prevention Technology

Investor: Health Tech Company Offering Wearable Devices for Injury Prevention

Investment: £30,000 per annum over five years, plus provision of wearable devices for the team

Implementation:

• Deploy wearable devices during training sessions and matches to collect data and analyze injury risks.
• Tailor training programs based on insights to reduce injuries and improve player health.

Outcome and Benefits:

For Motherwell FC:

• Notable decrease in training-related injuries, keeping key players fit and available.
• Improved player performance and longevity.
• Potential cost savings on medical treatments and player rehabilitation.

For the Health Tech Company:

• Revenue Split: 70% of savings from reduced injury costs to Motherwell FC, 30% to the health tech company.
• Valuable data and feedback to refine and enhance their product.
• Strengthened market position with a successful implementation in professional sports.

I’d be surprised if this level of investment would be available. There are already sophisticated examples of both these systems on the market sold globally that have cost a fortune to develop. It’s difficult to see why they would pay Motherwell to use them. I’m not sure they would go for that level of revenue split either.

[weeyin]

4 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said:

David with all respect, this example seem full of hypotheticals:

why would a tech company pick us over all the other clubs?

where have the figures came from? no company is going to give away income of £150k in both cases. 
 

I love Motherwell but if you were wanting to showcase your produce you would try for a worldwide know club

 

So what you're really asking is why EB, owner of an American film production company, would choose us over a worldwide known club? Or does that test only apply to Scottish businesses?

[David]

5 minutes ago, Peter Millar said:

I’d be surprised if this level of investment would be available. There are already sophisticated examples of both these systems on the market sold globally that have cost a fortune to develop. It’s difficult to see why they would pay Motherwell to use them. I’m not sure they would go for that level of revenue split either.

It's available. I know that for a fact.

EDIT: Those examples are really simple in their approach, which is why I chose them. They're easy to understand, so you can get an idea of how it would work.

And it does work.

[prideoflanarkshire]

2 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Accies received hundreds of thousands in partnerships and I'd argue we are higher profile than them. 

They also had a manager that got a cut of transfer fees so their Crown Jewels were sold on the cheap so he could get a cut before he was sack

[weeyin]

2 minutes ago, Peter Millar said:

I’d be surprised if this level of investment would be available. There are already sophisticated examples of both these systems on the market sold globally that have cost a fortune to develop. It’s difficult to see why they would pay Motherwell to use them. I’m not sure they would go for that level of revenue split either.

That's why they are examples.

EB hasn't even offered those. 

[weeyin]

3 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said:

They also had a manager that got a cut of transfer fees so their Crown Jewels were sold on the cheap so he could get a cut before he was sack

So you agree that they received hundreds of thousands in partnership deals, they are a smaller club than us and it's possible to get a return on academy players being sold?

[Peter Millar]

6 minutes ago, weeyin said:

For the pitch, the maintenace costs come out of the rental fees. The return on investment percentage comes after costs paid. 

For the data, players obviously already have it in their contracts given the Opta stats that is available for a fee. 

If you invest 500k and get zero return from the academy, that's tough luck. Any investor knows returns are not guaranteed and the rate of return factors in that risk. A 50% return implies higher risk. 

But given I made these up inside 60 seconds, I'm sure some actual thought could be given to more watertight scenarios.

It's hardly a unqiue situation for businesses to partner with sports teams for some kind of return. 

I’ve recently been involved in a community asset transfer process for a football pitch. After costs there’s not much left.

Opta stats are not the same as health information that is personal to you.

I don’t think ‘tough luck’ will cut it with many investors.

I appreciate you thought these up at short notice as examples.

[Peter Millar]

10 minutes ago, David said:

It's available. I know that for a fact.

EDIT: Those examples are really simple in their approach, which is why I chose them. They're easy to understand, so you can get an idea of how it would work.

And it does work.

For the amounts quoted in the post?

[David]

1 minute ago, Peter Millar said:

For the amounts quoted in the post?

Those are examples. You wanted examples, I provided examples. I'm not sitting here right now speaking to strategic investors in the club and publishing real-time information.

Those examples show how the system works. And like I said, it does work.

[Peter Millar]

6 minutes ago, David said:

Those are examples. You wanted examples, I provided examples. I'm not sitting here right now speaking to strategic investors in the club and publishing real-time information.

Those examples show how the system works. And like I said, it does work.

I didn’t ask for examples I think you might have provided them for someone else. I just commented on them. I think they can work too but just not at a level that can bring investment to the club that will provide meaningful sustainable growth. 

[David]

2 hours ago, Peter Millar said:

I didn’t ask for examples I think you might have provided them for someone else. I just commented on them. I think they can work too but just not at a level that can bring investment to the club that will provide meaningful sustainable growth. 

I believe they can. It's not just the investment itself, it's what the strategic aspect can provide. 

For example, the service provided by the strategic investor can potentially save us money in areas we're already spending in, and it can provide results that allow us to capitalise financially further down the line. Those investors become contacts for other investments and so on.

What I am virtually certain of, is that all of the information in the proposal document will more than allow the club to run sustainably, in profit, and without having to forfeit fan ownership. 

The previous Society board, perhaps well-intentioned, did not even scratch the surface as far as what can be done with our club model. Not even close.

What I would be interested in, is why people are not placing as much scrutiny on Barmack's offer? He has rocked up, offered £300k a year for almost half the club, the chairmanship, seats on the board, and with a demand that the Well Society find an extra £200k per year just to finance the club while he basically runs it.

And his ideas? 

An "of the shelf" AI software that can be implemented in a few weeks and costs in the low five figures in USD. The idea of taking one of our home games against one of the Old Firm to Wembley Stadium. He was also "incredulous" that the chairman wouldn't have a say in which players the club signs, and believes it would be within his remit to ask the club to sign and play two Latin American players simply because he has a contact that has a tequila company and would maybe want to sponsor us.

Let's be honest, if the Society had included anything like those above in their proposal, they'd have been eaten alive by the support, and by you. 

Yet, Barmack gets a pass. why is that?

[weeyin]

2 hours ago, Peter Millar said:

I’ve recently been involved in a community asset transfer process for a football pitch. After costs there’s not much left.

Opta stats are not the same as health information that is personal to you.

I don’t think ‘tough luck’ will cut it with many investors.

I appreciate you thought these up at short notice as examples.

"Tough luck" is what many savvy investors receive in the way of returns. That's why they diversify their portfolio. Sink money into multiple businesses knowing that many will return zero or close to, and hope the one or two that succeed will cover their losses. If all you have is 500k and sink that into a single business, you are a mug.

However, as I (and you) said, I literally came with up with those in under a minute. I have no doubt that given a few weeks we could come up with more concrete ideas. The biggest issue the Society has had in recent years, and the biggest issue I have had with the Society in recent years, is that they seem to have been doing nothing in this area. It's why I haven't voted for any of the incumbents in the past couple of elections.

But even if all my ideas are mince, it still feels that doing nothing at this point is much better than accepting the bad deal EB is offering. It's not like we are teetering on administration (which is what happened when JB was the single investor).

That's just my opinion though. It's only worth one vote, the same as the rest of the members.

[Peter Millar]

4 hours ago, David said:

I believe they can. It's not just the investment itself, it's what the strategic aspect can provide. 

For example, the service provided by the strategic investor can potentially save us money in areas we're already spending in, and it can provide results that allow us to capitalise financially further down the line. Those investors become contacts for other investments and so on.

What I am virtually certain of, is that all of the information in the proposal document will more than allow the club to run sustainably, in profit, and without having to forfeit fan ownership. 

The previous Society board, perhaps well-intentioned, did not even scratch the surface as far as what can be done with our club model. Not even close.

What I would be interested in, is why people are not placing as much scrutiny on Barmack's offer? He has rocked up, offered £300k a year for almost half the club, the chairmanship, seats on the board, and with a demand that the Well Society find an extra £200k per year just to finance the club while he basically runs it.

And his ideas? 

An "of the shelf" AI software that can be implemented in a few weeks and costs in the low five figures in USD. The idea of taking one of our home games against one of the Old Firm to Wembley Stadium. He was also "incredulous" that the chairman wouldn't have a say in which players the club signs, and believes it would be within his remit to ask the club to sign and play two Latin American players simply because he has a contact that has a tequila company and would maybe want to sponsor us.

Let's be honest, if the Society had included anything like those above in their proposal, they'd have been eaten alive by the support, and by you. 

Yet, Barmack gets a pass. why is thav

[steelboy]

Caldwell seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. One day he's pro ownership, the next day he's refusing to promote the Well Society plan on the club's Social Media. 

It's sensible from his perspective but it shows he's not at all trustworthy in terms of representing fan ownership on the board. 

[steelman1991]

20 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Caldwell seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. One day he's pro ownership, the next day he's refusing to promote the Well Society plan on the club's Social Media. 

It's sensible from his perspective but it shows he's not at all trustworthy in terms of representing fan ownership on the board. 

He's not in his position to do that - that's surely the job of the WS reps elected on the Society ticket.

[Kmcalpin]

6 hours ago, David said:

What I would be interested in, is why people are not placing as much scrutiny on Barmack's offer?.........Yet, Barmack gets a pass. why is that?

It depends on what "people" you mean David. Just to be clear, I don't have X (Twitter), although I'm on Fb. From what I've read on here and on P & B, there's been far more scrutiny of EB's proposal than there has been of the Society's strategy, which was only released to most folk yesterday. Yes, there are a few fans, and they are few in number from what I can see, primarily on Fb, who have pretty much nailed their colours to the mast in support of the Wild Sheep proposal.  

I would hope Society members will scrutinise the strategy and ask questions and submit comments. The drop in session tonight is a start. I'm pretty sure thats what the Society Board will want. There's nothing more soul destroying than putting a lot of time and effort into something only for some recipients to comment "its fine / its rubbish". It sounds impressive but is not perfect and will be improved by members' scrutiny.  To be fair, I haven't seen many detailed criticisms of the strategy so far.

[joewarkfanclub]

4 hours ago, steelboy said:

Caldwell seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. One day he's pro ownership, the next day he's refusing to promote the Well Society plan on the club's Social Media. 

It's sensible from his perspective but it shows he's not at all trustworthy in terms of representing fan ownership on the board. 

This is a good example of why the structure of the club needs to be changed.

The CEO was recommended to the Executive Board by the WS Board. But he was employed by the Executive Board who are categorically recommending the investment proposal.

He could be the biggest supporter of fan ownership and the WS proposal that there is, but it would take a very brave man to speak freely under those circumstances.

[santheman]

2 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

This is a good example of why the structure of the club needs to be changed.

The CEO was recommended to the Executive Board by the WS Board. But he was employed by the Executive Board who are categorically recommending the investment proposal.

He could be the biggest supporter if fan ownership and the WS proposal that there is, but it would take a very brave man to speak freely under those circumstances.

In a nutshell👌

[steelboy]

23 minutes ago, steelman1991 said:

He's not in his position to do that - that's surely the job of the WS reps elected on the Society ticket.

The social media channels are controlled by club employees. Caldwell is responsible for those employees. 

[joewarkfanclub]

30 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

It depends on what "people" you mean David. Just to be clear, I don't have X (Twitter), although I'm on Fb. From what I've read on here and on P & B, there's been far more scrutiny of EB's proposal than there has been of the Society's strategy, which was only released to most folk yesterday. Yes, there are a few fans, and they are few in number from what I can see, primarily on Fb, who have pretty much nailed their colours to the mast in support of the Wild Sheep proposal.  

I would hope Society members will scrutinise the strategy and ask questions and submit comments. The drop in session tonight is a start. I'm pretty sure thats what the Society Board will want. There's nothing more soul destroying than putting a lot of time and effort into something only for some recipients to comment "its fine / its rubbish". It sounds impressive but is not perfect and will be improved by members' scrutiny.  To be fair, I haven't seen many detailed criticisms of the strategy so far.

Im not on Twitter anymore either.

But there is definitely more unqualified support for the Wild Sheep proposal on FB than there is on here or P&B.

There are some offering reasonable scrutiny towards the WS proposal and that is to be welcomed, as you say, as it will allow for a robust process and the improvement of what of the face of it seems a genuine vision for the future of the club.

The problem with the Wild Sheep proposal is that, other than the financials or the board make up theres not a lot more to scrutinise (although those in themselves should be enough to vote against).

Ive also heard a lot if people comment that the WS proposals wont work as they havent worked up til now. 

There seems to be a misapprehension of how the WS was operated before, why it was operated that way, and why its no longer being operated that way.

The Well Society changed for the better last October folks! The new people involved are younger, more enthusiastic, full of new skills and ideas. They are no longer happy to be sidelined and payed lip service by the executive board.

A vote against the Wild Sheep proposal isnt a vote for no change. Its a vote to give the Well Society the chance it always should have had to be a success.