New Investment Options

[wellfan]

30 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Also, I have absolutely no wish to be part of the "I told you so" brigade in 2/4/6 years time, but if this goes through and the Club is left in a mess, who will be left to pick up the pieces?

The Society will implode (although there's someone on P&B saying they'd increase their input to it if this goes through, which is probably an outlier) and more or less cease to be the presence it is. The newly appointed Board will no doubt bend to Erik's will, reduce its loan as an equivalent investment when it can't meet its obligations (excellent work on that btw @David) and as a result the security of the stadium/land will go... then what?

This might seem petty, but the people who vote this through will flip like a coin and look to those who opposed this all for the solutions when it goes tits up... If I'm wrong in all of this, I will absolutely hold up my hands and admit that I was. Will those that voted for it, if/when this all goes wrong? 

So we start again, and save the Club, again. We'll become the next Clyde/Airdrie/whatever and that'll be that. All because someone stood up and said "NETFLIX! DOCUMENTARY! SNAPCHAT!"

To address each of your four paragraphs:

• We'll likely enter administration, again.
• The land will be sold, as he's a businessman, and then he'll bail out. Then we'll become North Lanarkshire Community FC in the WoSFL at Ravenscraig in the Tony Macaroni mk2.
• Yep, it's like politics. The average voter is stupid and has the memory of a fish.
• See point 2 above.

[tottenmfc]

Having had a quick scan through this, other than the docuseries thing and more buzzwords about "Digital Content Expansion", all of these proposals seem like they would be achievable without giving this character almost 50% of the club, while depleting the WS funds significantly.

As has been stated several times, the financials of this deal simply make no sense whatsoever. If he was proposing this and sticking in say £1m for a 20% stake (with the WS not having to match him) then I could maybe live with it, but the terms being offered are mental.

The reference to Caley Braves fills me with dread also. They're a soulless pointless amateur club who have somehow managed to part some fools from their cash online. Any reference to them is a red flag for me.

Edit: This also doesn't clear-up how these characters expect to see a return on their investment. Despite the blatant lie about having "a passion for the club", they're not doing it out the kindness of their heart, and I doubt any docuseries is going to be lucrative enough to cover their outlay, so where do they get a return from? Is it based on the fact there are assets in excess of the valuation placed on the club that they can strip worst case scenario? Or is the plan to simply boost revenue a bit, get the balance sheet looking a bit healthier, reduce the WS reserves to the point they can't provide a "safety net" for the club then look to sell on after 6 years at a profit?

Edited July 5, 2024 by tottenmfc
Addition

[wellfan]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

I predict that a lot of us will be cancelling our long-standing Well Society direct debits in 2.5 weeks

And the flip side to this. If Barmack's offer is kicked into touch by the Well Society members, I will double (maybe triple) my monthly direct debit and do what I can to support/encourage the new WS Board to deliver on their plans for the WS and Club. 

[StAndrew7]

Also, scream this from the fucking rooftops:

 

"We are not desperate for money, we are financially stable," he said. "We have enough money to see us through this season, next and maybe a bit the next."

[Villageman]

3 minutes ago, wellfan said:

And the flip side to this. If Barmack's offer is kicked into touch by the Well Society members, I will double (maybe triple) my monthly direct debit and do what I can to support/encourage the new WS Board to deliver on their plans for the WS and Club. 

Like this !  I will do the same. How many more fans can afford to consider similar action ?. Just think if the monthly contribution of £180k pa could be doubled we would be more than halfway to matching EB 300 k. We need to also find a way to encourage WS members not currently contributing to consider restarting.

I do realise that not everyone is in a position financially to do it.

[Electric Blues]

1 hour ago, tottenmfc said:

If he was proposing this and sticking in say £1m for a 20% stake (with the WS not having to match him) then I could maybe live with it.

That's it in a nutshell. Take a punt with £1m of his own cash to buy 20% of a £4m asset, and 20% of the Board seats, with a plan to grow sustainably to make a return down the line, leaving the fan ownership model and safety net untouched. Basically, the exact opposite of what's actually proposed.

One thing Erik keeps repeating, which I DO agree with, is that there are easier ways to make a return on your investment than buying into a relatively small Scottish football club. That's why all the risk is being offloaded on to the Society, and in my opinion it's far too big a risk for me to even begin to contemplate voting for it.

[StAndrew7]

13 minutes ago, Villageman said:

Like this !  I will do the same. How many more fans can afford to consider similar action ?. Just think if the monthly contribution of £180k pa could be doubled we would be more than halfway to matching EB 300 k. We need to also find a way to encourage WS members not currently contributing to consider restarting.

I do realise that not everyone is in a position financially to do it.

Which is exactly what's proposed in the Society's plan, without the need to give up 3 seats and chairmanship of the executive board and de facto control of the Club for £330k in the first year?

[Villageman]

8 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Which is exactly what's proposed in the Society's plan, without the need to give up 3 seats and chairmanship of the executive board and de facto control of the Club for £330k in the first year?

Yes I did see it. However the point I was I was trying to make is finding aa acceptable way of achieving the goal.

[stv]

Can one of us no just win The Euro Millions Lottery and as a loyal well fan gift the club 8 million. Im sure it would be tax deductible.

[David]

I'm not going to even comment on the vast majority of the Wild Sheep sports proposal, simply because what they're proposing isn't anything of a surprise really. It's not groundbreaking stuff. And it isn't the real reason behind their proposal. All the talk of passion for the club, and so on? A front. Anyone can see that. Their plan for the club is so bad that it doesn't take a business mastermind to see that very little thought has went into it. 

What is important, and should be highlighted is the wording used in the small print (isn't that always the case in matters such as these?)

Let's look at that:

"And for the purposes of clarity, we are not looking to “take over” the Club by purchasing additional shares beyond the shares outlined in our proposed deal. We are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder."

Erik Barmack’s recent statement indicates that he and his wife, Courtney, have no plans to purchase additional shares directly. However, this doesn’t rule out the possibility of acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party. This happens all the time in business. Such indirect methods could still allow them to gain control or influence, effectively sidestepping the intended minority shareholder status. 

Something else in the document regarding the financial contribution of the Well society:

 "Should TWS not be able to sustain these payments, our firm belief is that this should not be a “backdoor” to further ownership for any of the minority owners. Possible remedies could include extending the term, or some further reduction in debt. Our thinking is that we would need to discuss the most practical solution with TWS that maintains their majority ownership and doesn’t change the ownership structure of Fir Park."

"Some further reduction in debt." I can't highlight that point enough. The debt in question is secured against the stadium, and more importantly the ground on which the stadium sits.

There is no "or" about it, that's what will be pursued when the Society cannot make those payments.

I refer everyone back to this point I made earlier:

Impact on Existing Loan:

What Could Happen: The £868,000 loan from the Society to the club could be affected. Well, the £434,000 that would remain after 50% of the original amount is converted into shares to help the Well Society maintain a 50.1% majority shareholding in a football club that it would have previously held over 70% in.

How It Works:

• Debt Forgiveness Negotiation: If the Society fails to meet its financial commitments, the club could negotiate to have the loan forgiven in exchange for the Society being forgiven for not making its required payments.

It should be mentioned at this point that the Well Society loan is currently secured against the stadium. And more importantly, the ground it sits on.

All of a sudden that "clean balance sheet" looks really attractive. Why? For the following reasons:

Release of Security:

• What Happens: If the loan is forgiven, the security (the stadium) associated with the loan would be released. This means the stadium would no longer be collateral for the debt since the debt itself would be eliminated.
• Implication: Without the loan, the club would own the stadium free and clear of that specific debt obligation.

Potential Increased Control for Wild Sheep Sports:

• Scenario: If Wild Sheep Sports becomes the majority shareholder, and the loan is forgiven, they could have increased control over the club’s assets, including the stadium.
• Implication: WSS, as the majority shareholder, would have significant influence over decisions regarding the stadium, including the possibility of selling it or remortgaging it to gain finance based against it.

So, yeah. That's the end game. A vote for this proposal is a vote to potentially rob your kids and grandkids of a football club to call their own in the future. All because some small-time investor waved a few quid in front of us.

[Mccus28]

Firstly, I don't think EB or the WS have convinced me with their proposals.

But to suggest that your fellow supporter is stupid if they have a different opinion on the deal is quite cringeworthy and says more about you.

EB has put a proposal on the table as have the WS, neither of which have blown me away.

I think the WS are well intentioned but i also dont think EB is sitting in a swivel chair stroking his cat pondering how he will take over the world with the vast sums of money he will make from the demise of Motherwell FC.  I believe he is also well intentioned and not the villain some of you are trying to suggest he is.

Lets hope all can find some common ground and not be millitant toward people trying to assist in driving Motherwell forward whoever it is, EB or the WS.

[weeyin]

4 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

But to suggest that your fellow supporter is stupid if they have a different opinion on the deal is quite cringeworthy and says more about you.

Agreed. If you want to persuade people to join your camp, calling them "stupid" or "gullible" is not the approach to take.

 

[David]

32 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

Firstly, I don't think EB or the WS have convinced me with their proposals.

But to suggest that your fellow supporter is stupid if they have a different opinion on the deal is quite cringeworthy and says more about you.

EB has put a proposal on the table as have the WS, neither of which have blown me away.

I think the WS are well intentioned but i also dont think EB is sitting in a swivel chair stroking his cat pondering how he will take over the world with the vast sums of money he will make from the demise of Motherwell FC.  I believe he is also well intentioned and not the villain some of you are trying to suggest he is.

Lets hope all can find some common ground and not be millitant toward people trying to assist in driving Motherwell forward whoever it is, EB or the WS.

Was that directed at me?

If so, from everything I’ve shared (and there's been a lot!), that's your takeaway? No concerns about the lack of clarity on penalties for missing those payments (hint: it will happen if this deal goes through. The Well Society simply won't get the support it needs to meet those figures).

And sorry, but I'll be as vocal as needed when I believe someone is trying to push a deal that benefits them at the expense of our stadium and potentially puts it at risk. That might not concern you much, but it certainly concerns me.

[tottenmfc]

23 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

Firstly, I don't think EB or the WS have convinced me with their proposals.

But to suggest that your fellow supporter is stupid if they have a different opinion on the deal is quite cringeworthy and says more about you.

EB has put a proposal on the table as have the WS, neither of which have blown me away.

I think the WS are well intentioned but i also dont think EB is sitting in a swivel chair stroking his cat pondering how he will take over the world with the vast sums of money he will make from the demise of Motherwell FC.  I believe he is also well intentioned and not the villain some of you are trying to suggest he is.

Lets hope all can find some common ground and not be millitant toward people trying to assist in driving Motherwell forward whoever it is, EB or the WS.

Putting aside whether people are stupid or not, surely the only question to be answered here is "Is the Barmack deal good for MFC?".

If you believe the answer is yes (which can only really be based on blind faith in a guy with zero experience in running a sports team at this point) then you vote in favour, if you don't think it is then you vote against.

You don't have to be "blown away" by the WS proposal. The fact is that the status quo has allowed the club to run on a stable footing for years and delivered fairly decent on-field performance and a modest profit over that period. The refresh of the WS suggests they will be more proactive in looking to improve things further, but of course there are no guarantees that will happen.

My concern is that people in favour of the proposal have simply heard "Netflix", thought about Wrexham, and that's enough for them. No amount of reason is going to change that unfortunately. Comments along the lines of "we can't afford to knock-back £2m" also suggest a lack of understanding of the actual proposal and of the current situation of the club, despite the Club Board themselves stating we are financially stable. Not everyone can or will be persuaded by reason or logic unfortunately.

[steelboy]

Barmack is planning to spend £1m of the club's money on 'predictive AI marketing'. 

What's the odd the company providing this service is also owned by Erik Barmack?

[wellup83]

Admittedly I was one of the supporters whom favoured EB's proposal initially. Probably due to a bit of a last season hangover and the emotional turmoil last season produced. Having had time to digest the proposals from both sides I'll be sticking with the WS. Whom I trust to have the interests of the club at the forefront of any decisions made. Barmack's plans for the future of my club are on the whole simply too vague to take the risk in my view. 

[Mccus28]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Was that directed at me?

If so, from everything I’ve shared (and there's been a lot!), that's your takeaway? No concerns about the lack of clarity on penalties for missing those payments (hint: it will happen if this deal goes through. The Well Society simply won't get the support it needs to meet those figures).

And sorry, but I'll be as vocal as needed when I believe someone is trying to push a deal that benefits them at the expense of our stadium and potentially puts it at risk. That might not concern you much, but it certainly concerns me.

Wasn't aimed at you in the slightest unless Ive missed where you've called your fellow well fans stupid.

As Ive stated before and will again, I don't think either party involved here has any great ideas or shown they can drive the club forward and I personally think that both must do better with their proposals and hopefully they can find some common ground.

We are all on the same team here!!!!!

[StAndrew7]

5 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

Wasn't aimed at you in the slightest unless Ive missed where you've called your fellow well fans stupid.

As Ive stated before and will again, I don't think either party involved here has any great ideas or shown they can drive the club forward and I personally think that both must do better with their proposals and hopefully they can find some common ground.

We are all on the same team here!!!!!

Fair enough... but how are you voting? 🤣

[Mccus28]

21 minutes ago, tottenmfc said:

Putting aside whether people are stupid or not, surely the only question to be answered here is "Is the Barmack deal good for MFC?".

If you believe the answer is yes (which can only really be based on blind faith in a guy with zero experience in running a sports team at this point) then you vote in favour, if you don't think it is then you vote against.

You don't have to be "blown away" by the WS proposal. The fact is that the status quo has allowed the club to run on a stable footing for years and delivered fairly decent on-field performance and a modest profit over that period. The refresh of the WS suggests they will be more proactive in looking to improve things further, but of course there are no guarantees that will happen.

My concern is that people in favour of the proposal have simply heard "Netflix", thought about Wrexham, and that's enough for them. No amount of reason is going to change that unfortunately. Comments along the lines of "we can't afford to knock-back £2m" also suggest a lack of understanding of the actual proposal and of the current situation of the club, despite the Club Board themselves stating we are financially stable. Not everyone can or will be persuaded by reason or logic unfortunately.

A very reasoned post so thanks for that and you raise some very valid points.

I personally think we should be "blown away" if we want to gain ground and overtake the teams around us, this whole process should have been an exciting time for the club where we look at visions to take us forward but instead its turned into a sh*t show with in-fighting and division.

I agree however we will be fine from a survival aspect if we remain with the WS but I also doubt we will see much difference from an income point of view and if thats how our fans vote then fine, its democratic.

however as things stand Its not a great look for our fantastic club.

 

[steelboy]

Grant Russell is making some good points on Twitter about Barmack's plan not including ongoing costs of staffing and support for the CRM system he is proposing. 

The AI and CRM have to deliver profit of £300,000 a year just to break even according to Barmack's plan but there's zero detail of how the marketing actually results in more money for the club. 

[Mccus28]

6 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Fair enough... but how are you voting? 🤣

Im honestly still not sure, i have massive reservations about both proposals if im honest, I feel we are all being forced to vote for the "least worst" which is spookily like our politics at the moment

[David]

Just now, Mccus28 said:

As Ive stated before and will again, I don't think either party involved here has any great ideas or shown they can drive the club forward and I personally think that both must do better with their proposals and hopefully they can find some common ground.

Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment.

Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder."

According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares.

However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business.

More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments.

This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived.

If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured.

So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society.

[StAndrew7]

9 minutes ago, Mccus28 said:

Im honestly still not sure, i have massive reservations about both proposals if im honest, I feel we are all being forced to vote for the least worst which is spookily like our politics at the moment

I think the thing I would point out, is that the vote is essentially for or against Erik's investment plan.

If it goes through, we're effectively at his mercy because of the control he'll receive from the start. £330k for 3 seats on the board and the chairmanship. Just over 1/3 of what the WS have in the Club right now and he's receiving far more than the Society ever has.

The WS's vision/proposal is designed to be worked on collaboratively with the fans, outside investors and it means we still control the Club. We can all have a say in that and get involved with it (or choose not to be); that excites me far, far more than Erik taking the reigns and, for example, spending £100k on an app, which a significant number of football media professionals have already called into question.

Personally, I would remember what the our Outgoing Chairman (who is pushing so vehemently for this) said about the club in January: 

Quote

"We are not desperate for money, we are financially stable," he said.

"We have enough money to see us through this season, next and maybe a bit the next.

Why the need to rush this through, then, when there are some pretty spectacular issues still needing clarified, per @David's posts?

Edit: also, just to add. The fact the Well Society had to produce the plan they did in all of this, shows just how badly the outgoing chairman has done his job over the last 3-5 years. I mentioned this before, but he spoke about "selling our story" to Netflix/Amazon at every AGM over that period and did nothing about it. Why? Because things were ticking along fine. We'd sold Moult, Turnbull, Scott, Heneghan, Kipre and others, which basically meant we were secure.

We barely did any strategic thinking/projects over a significant period of time because everything was going fine and we lost a (talented, if somewhat controversial at times) Headr of Comms and then a really committed CEO to have them replaced by... no-one because the position was canned and then no-one for over a year because the candidates they interviewed all rejected the job, then they just didn't bother restarting the recruitment.

We've hit the point where he now wants to leave his position and all of a sudden we're needing investment and it needs to be done NOW... 

[joewarkfanclub]

3 minutes ago, David said:

Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment.

Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder."

According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares.

However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business.

More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments.

This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived.

If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured.

So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society.

This for me is where the real risk lies for the club (and us as supporters).

Much has been spoken about the pro's and con's of both plans.

In a perfect world we could negotiate a deal where the best elements of both plans could be incorporated and a collegiate approach found to the running of the club.

However, thats not where we are.

The current deal gives all the power and control to Wild Sheep Sports whilst they bear none of the risk.

All of the risk falls on the Well Society (ie the supporters).

Thats why this is a bad deal.

Thats why it needs to be voted down.

[Mccus28]

8 minutes ago, David said:

Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment.

Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder."

According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares.

However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business.

More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments.

This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived.

If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured.

So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society.

Im not sure why you're trying to convince me with these posts, im not particularly in favour of EB, I think too much remains unanswered