New Investment Options

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, yosemite sam said:

When we have to near enough match what wild sheep invest over the period and go from 71% ownership to 50.1%, and think thats a good idea is in my opinion not thinking straight. While we would at that point in time have a majority shareholding, it doesn't take much to turn that into 49.9%. If we are investing as much as Wild Sheep, we should be maintaining our shareholding, not reducing it.

Exactly.

We have the shares.

If he wants them, then buy them or at least invest money into the club at a level it makes a difference and we reduce our shareholding accordingly.

This proposal that we should match his investment to lose 20% of our shareholding is for the birds!

[Tamwell]

As a hypothetical, what will you do if the Wild Sheep proposal is voted through?
At this point, I’m feeling confident that it won’t be but concerned by some of the outliers on Facebook etc.

 

 

[Kmcalpin]

8 hours ago, Tamwell said:

As a hypothetical, what will you do if the Wild Sheep proposal is voted through?
At this point, I’m feeling confident that it won’t be but concerned by some of the outliers on Facebook etc.

I've not really been following it, but in what way are you concerned?

[santheman]

8 hours ago, Tamwell said:

As a hypothetical, what will you do if the Wild Sheep proposal is voted through?
At this point, I’m feeling confident that it won’t be but concerned by some of the outliers on Facebook etc.

 

 

2 choices.

I either go and support my wee team and stop my DD to the WS in protest or I accept the democratic vote and get behind the team, increase my DD and hope that everything EB promises comes to fruition.

Probably the 2nd as I couldn't walk away after 50 odd years of supporting my team but a lot of fans maybe would.

 

[Tamwell]

5 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

I've not really been following it, but in what way are you concerned?

The discussion on Facebook has a completely different narrative to the one we’re seeing on here and on P&B. 
Many people seem to favour the deal, I’m concerned that, outside of our wee bubble, there is positivity towards something that could critically damage our club.

[Cameron_Mcd]

13 minutes ago, santheman said:

2 choices.

I either go and support my wee team and stop my DD to the WS in protest or I accept the democratic vote and get behind the team, increase my DD and hope that everything EB promises comes to fruition.

Probably the 2nd as I couldn't walk away after 50 odd years of supporting my team but a lot of fans maybe would.

 

I don't think I could ever walk away but could I genuinely justify paying my DD when it's going straight to the Barmack's vanity projects? I'm then essentially just funding his plaything, it just becomes a voluntary increase on my season ticket price. I'd cancel my DD and based on comments over on P&B I'm certainly not alone in that belief.

[StAndrew7]

27 minutes ago, santheman said:

2 choices.

I either go and support my wee team and stop my DD to the WS in protest or I accept the democratic vote and get behind the team, increase my DD and hope that everything EB promises comes to fruition.

Probably the 2nd as I couldn't walk away after 50 odd years of supporting my team but a lot of fans maybe would.

 

I think I'm somewhere in between you and @Cameron_Mcd; I'd probably keep my DD going for the first 2 years but review it every 6 months or so against Erik's performance.

As much as I don't want the WS to essentially fund his projects, if things don't go well the money needed to sort the buyback out and the guarantee the Club going forward per the outgoing chairman's chat at the AGM is a going to be a substantial challenge.

Equally, the really snide bastard in me thinks the people that vote for this should be the ones sorting the mess out if it happens, but that's not really how it works.

If it works I'll hold my hands up and admit I as wrong.

[Spiderpig]

All the hard work going forward will be for the WS, as irrespective of the result of the vote it has to seriously up its game to respond to a yes or no vote if they have any hope of making true fan ownership work.

 

[bobbybingo]

12 hours ago, Tamwell said:

Why would he not be allowed to give his opinion on air?

If he's a shareholder (if), potential conflict of interest? Maybe he could but chose not to, which is his right. Would you be happy for him to very publicly back a yes or no vote if it differed from your opinion?

[StAndrew7]

10 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

All the hard work going forward will be for the WS, as irrespective of the result of the vote it has to seriously up its game to respond to a yes or no vote if they have any hope of making true fan ownership work.

 

I think this is absolutely true.

We all know a yes vote will lead to a significant change in the WS almost immediately; there will be one person on the board as a result of resignations and the whole thing will need to be rebuilt. That could take the first 3/6/9/12* months of Barmack's reign.

I would also hazard a guess that people willing to fill the spaces on the board will (in the majority, anyway) be from one "camp" of the vote, which could then lead to a nodding through of a lot of Erik's ideas without much of a challenge to them.

*Delete as appropriate

[bobbybingo]

1 hour ago, Tamwell said:

The discussion on Facebook has a completely different narrative to the one we’re seeing on here and on P&B. 
Many people seem to favour the deal, I’m concerned that, outside of our wee bubble, there is positivity towards something that could critically damage our club.

Going by the conversations I've had on Facebook, most of those shouting for the deal to go through are neither Well Society members nor shareholders. They truly believe the Society's been running the club for years and it's getting the blame for everything the Executive Board has/hasn't done.

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, Tamwell said:

The discussion on Facebook has a completely different narrative to the one we’re seeing on here and on P&B. 
Many people seem to favour the deal, I’m concerned that, outside of our wee bubble, there is positivity towards something that could critically damage our club.

I'm fairly relaxed about contrary opinions. On balance, Its probably a good thing. I can't speak for the new Society Board, but suspect they'd agree.

I am however bit concerned at how polarised the discussion has been. Its become an echo chamber, especially on P & B, and thats unhealthy. I'm always keen to listen to other's arguments, if they're contrary to mine. Its important to understand why they think as they do and not because they're  "morons or idiots". They may have genuine concerns that haven't been addressed or through poor communications.  It also helps to flush and tease out weaknesses in our own arguments and plans. 

It would be soul destroying for the Society Board to achieve a 100% No vote and few comments on its newly launched strategy, those which are received, being "Fine or I agree". It will want to encourage engagement and flush out weaknesses in its strategy and to receive constructive criticism.  It will want, too, to understand the concerns of non members in order to encourage them to join. We should be talking to fans, not talking at them.

My biggest concern, is dividing and splitting the fans; that would be catastrophically disastrous.  We have to keep the debate respectful.

Not getting at you by the way Tam.      

[santheman]

1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said:

I'm fairly relaxed about contrary opinions. On balance, Its probably a good thing. I can't speak for the new Society Board, but suspect they'd agree.

I am however bit concerned at how polarised the discussion has been. Its become an echo chamber, especially on P & B, and thats unhealthy. I'm always keen to listen to other's arguments, if they're contrary to mine. Its important to understand why they think as they do and not because they're  "morons or idiots". They may have genuine concerns that haven't been addressed or through poor communications.  It also helps to flush and tease out weaknesses in our own arguments and plans. 

It would be soul destroying for the Society Board to achieve a 100% No vote and few comments on its newly launched strategy, those which are received, being "Fine or I agree". It will want to encourage engagement and flush out weaknesses in its strategy and to receive constructive criticism.  It will want, too, to understand the concerns of non members in order to encourage them to join. We should be talking to fans, not talking at them.

My biggest concern, is dividing and splitting the fans; that would be catastrophically disastrous.  We have to keep the debate respectful.

Not getting at you by the way Tam.      

100% this.

As you say here and P&B are pretty much on the same page so while it's good to have a healthy discussion, we're already preaching to the converted.

It's X and FB where we need to win the battle by persuasion and encouragement to ask those with a different opinion to yours to listen to both sides of the argument.

I've had a modicum of success on that but its frightening to realise just how ill informed some of our fans are about how the club is actually run on a day to day basis and the difference between the Executive Board and the WS.

 

 

 

[wellfan]

13 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

My biggest concern, is dividing and splitting the fans; that would be catastrophically disastrous.  We have to keep the debate respectful.

Unfortunately, it seems that McMahon has already set that train in motion, and the blame for any disaster will be on him, not the fans. 

[wellfan]

Shots fired!

https://thewellsociety.uk

 

 

[Motherwellfc1991]

Genuine questions looking for some factual answers not hear say. I don’t know the answers hence asking given some stuff I’ve seen raised on social media 

 

1. How much funds have the well society to date passed to the club? Roughly ?- as a loan ?

2. Why did the society require to pass over these funds - ie - player signing , lack of revenue etc etc

3. Who was the chairman and ceo when the majority of these funds changed hands from society to club as a ‘loan’

4. when this happened were said chairman and ceo sitting on both the society and executive boards 

5. were the remainder of the society board members asked to vote on the money parting from the society to the club 

 

If anyone knows the answers then I’ll have a better idea of my choice  

 

 

[StAndrew7]

11 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Genuine questions looking for some factual answers not hear say. I don’t know the answers hence asking given some stuff I’ve seen raised on social media 

 

1. How much funds have the well society to date passed to the club? Roughly ?- as a loan ?

2. Why did the society require to pass over these funds - ie - player signing , lack of revenue etc etc

3. Who was the chairman and ceo when the majority of these funds changed hands from society to club as a ‘loan’

4. when this happened were said chairman and ceo sitting on both the society and executive boards 

5. were the remainder of the society board members asked to vote on the money parting from the society to the club 

 

If anyone knows the answers then I’ll have a better idea of my choice  

 

 

1. About 850k, I think.

Can't answer the rest for certain but I'm sure others can.

[joewarkfanclub]

20 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Genuine questions looking for some factual answers not hear say. I don’t know the answers hence asking given some stuff I’ve seen raised on social media 

 

1. How much funds have the well society to date passed to the club? Roughly ?- as a loan ?

2. Why did the society require to pass over these funds - ie - player signing , lack of revenue etc etc

3. Who was the chairman and ceo when the majority of these funds changed hands from society to club as a ‘loan’

4. when this happened were said chairman and ceo sitting on both the society and executive boards 

5. were the remainder of the society board members asked to vote on the money parting from the society to the club 

 

If anyone knows the answers then I’ll have a better idea of my choice  

 

 

Emailing the Society is probably your best bet to get full and accurate answers to all those questions in particular timelines.

members@thewellsociety.uk

[Motherwellfc1991]

Cheers thanks 

That’s around the figure I been told but didn’t know if it was factual or not 

I’m asking myself now - given the club is on a sound financial footing ( according to the present chairman)and we’ve raked in decent money on  transfers over the past few years why the need to borrow from the society - something isn’t adding up - unless it was particular projects etc 

[StAndrew7]

4 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Cheers thanks 

That’s around the figure I been told but didn’t know if it was factual or not 

I’m asking myself now - given the club is on a sound financial footing ( according to the present chairman)and we’ve raked in decent money on  transfers over the past few years why the need to borrow from the society - something isn’t adding up - unless it was particular projects etc 

Aye I totally understand that. Definitely email the society as suggested for full answers. There will be up to date figures in the latest accounts on Companies House for the WS loan as well.

[wellfan]

Everyone involved in this investment proposal needs to just admit that they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (deliberately or accidentally) and stop this charade. Pursuing it, on these terms and with those involved, will surely only cause more damage to a community-focused club. 

[StAndrew7]

7 minutes ago, wellfan said:

Everyone involved in this investment proposal needs to just admit that they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (deliberately or accidentally) and stop this charade. Pursuing it, on these terms and with those involved, will surely only cause more damage to a community-focused club. 

Nah. We'll be laughing on our way to the bank when our #GlobalCommunityClub is a market leader in Tuvalu.

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, santheman said:

I've had a modicum of success on that but its frightening to realise just how ill informed some of our fans are about how the club is actually run on a day to day basis and the difference between the Executive Board and the WS.

Thats a constructive approach. In terms of ignorance about the way the club is run, "we" could take 2 approaches. The first is to blame the fans who don't understand,but thats not helpful. The second is to take a more constructive approach.  The term "Executive Board", will mean little to many - Executive Board of what? So that's a communication issue. Why not rename it "Club Board"? Not a massive or costly change  but one which might help some fans to understand better. Just an example of what might help. 

[dennyc]

2 hours ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Genuine questions looking for some factual answers not hear say. I don’t know the answers hence asking given some stuff I’ve seen raised on social media 

 

1. How much funds have the well society to date passed to the club? Roughly ?- as a loan ?

2. Why did the society require to pass over these funds - ie - player signing , lack of revenue etc etc

3. Who was the chairman and ceo when the majority of these funds changed hands from society to club as a ‘loan’

4. when this happened were said chairman and ceo sitting on both the society and executive boards 

5. were the remainder of the society board members asked to vote on the money parting from the society to the club 

 

If anyone knows the answers then I’ll have a better idea of my choice  

 

 

My understanding of the answers to a few of those questions. Anyone know any different please correct. I am not close to anyone on either the old or new Society Board so my comments are based on responses to E-Mails and from having joined the Society at the outset and attended several presentations. Apologies if the response is lengthy but the questions are worthy of a detailed reply.

1. Around £2m total provided to date of which £850k was by way of Loan. Originally all funding was to be  Loan only (secured by a Standard Security over Fir Park) but that model was changed at the request of the Club Board supported by certain Members of the then Society Board. I believe around £1.2m of that £2m was passed across never to be returned. Les Hutchison was integral to the 'donation' as opposed to the 'loaning' of monies. Part of his Agreement which drained Society monies. Jim McMahon chose to continue a similar funding model, again supported by some Society Board Members. Barmack wishes to do the same.

No doubt someone can confirm the average annual income of the Society. Multiply that by the number of years the Society has existed and you will see why I am talking in millions rather than thousands. Another simple measure is to confirm how much in totql the Society has collected over the years and compare that to the total of current Bank Balance and outstanding Loan. Less expenses, they should match but I guarantee there is a sizeable shortfall. Donations made over the years.

The reasoning for Loans only and a Charge over Fir Park was that if the Club were to collapse, all monies due to the Society were protected and would receive repayment priority upon a Club Administration or Liquidation. Those repaid loans providing a basis for the formation of a new Club. Starting over if you like. Worst case scenario but a valid consideration. There was no real intention for the Loans to be repaid, so as not to affect Club cash flow. Plus the Security over Fir Park offered other protections of the major Club asset.

2/5.  Funds were originally to be moved across to cover short term funding gaps covering a range of expenditure relating to core Club activities and Community engagement. Society funds were not to be regarded as a piggy bank to be raided on a regular basis. In that way Society funds would gradually build up to a sizeable reserve. Millions was the hope.. 

In more recent times the Club forwarded a funding request to the Society and the Society Board would assess and decide whether to provide the funds. But not always on a Loan basis for some reason. When I asked for what purposes those funds were provided I was told "Projects". Pretty vague to be honest.  Members were not asked for their agreement to the change in the manner funds were provided.

When changes to the Society Board took place last year, driven by the new Appointees, it was decided that the Society should return as close as possible to the original funding concept. To build up Society assets. Also far more scrutiny was made of funding requests from the Club, and not all were passed as a matter of course. That does not appear to have been received well at Exec Board level and two Society Board members who seemed more aligned to the Exec Board have stood down, those Members having supported the Wild Sheep proposal against the majority view of the Society Board.

My personal view based on responses I have had over the years is that a complacent Exec Board, under it's two most recent Chairmen, sidelined the Society and treated Society monies as the Club's own. To be utilised for whatever purpose and whenever they decided. Supported by some but not all  Society Board members. Basically, It was easier to turn to the Society for finance as opposed to seeking solutions elsewhere or addressing inefficiencies within the Club. The new Society Board have addressed that situation, seeking to be respected as majority share holders and exercising more control over the monies provided by Society members.

The Barmack proposal will utilise all Society funds over time and eventually lead to the Loan being repaid/written off. Almost certainly leaving the Society with no assets. Oh and with a much reduced shareholding and with little power in the Exec Boardroom. With no Loan in existence, the Security over Fir Park could be cancelled leaving Fir Park free to be used by a Barmack led Board as Security for outside Loans to fund his various projects. There is a recognised funding shortfall in his latest plan. Why is that?

As I said, my take on things. Folk closer to the situation please confirm or disprove my understanding.

[Spiderpig]

From the BBC 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy08exp197ro