New Investment Options

[steelboy]

6 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

From the BBC 

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

That's good we are getting more mainstream coverage. 

The figures in the document are back of a fag paper nonsense. Spending a fortune on an App for a support of our size is crazy and as I have said before you can bet all the money from this spending will end up back in California. 

[bobbybingo]

1 minute ago, steelboy said:

That's good we are getting more mainstream coverage. 

The figures in the document are back of a fag paper nonsense. Spending a fortune on an App for a support of our size is crazy and as I have said before you can bet all the money from this spending will end up back in California. 

No mention of them using what are  known to be inaccurate figures, though.

[David]

5 hours 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.

There's always the option of supporting the team, but now treating it like any other fan of a team with a "millionaire" owner. You pay for your ticket, for your merchandise or whatever, and you leave the rest of the financial outlay to the people with the money.

That's what I'll be doing. I won't be funding the Barmack's side project.

4 hours 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 have a feeling that the Well Society moving forward, if the proposal from Barmack is accepted, will need a total rehaul. The current board, and the people who helped put together the new proposal, likely won't be involved.

Let's hope that there's some savvy, committed individuals among the Facebook/X ranks who are ready to step up and get involved if they get what they want.

[steelboy]

2 hours 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. 

Hopefully it'll be kicked out in two weeks and we can all stick this farce in the memory hole with Covid lockdowns and McGhee's second spell at the club. 

What's very telling is that this started out with a very expensive PR campaign from a prestigious Edinburgh firm and talk about Hollywood and Netflix but as soon as we got to a point where the fans were able to scrutinise the deal it all crumbled. McMahon and Barmack have embarrassed themselves with the  grudgingly revised offer and the last minute shitty business plan. It's all been bluster from them while the Well Society have stood strong due to commitment to the core values of being a fan owned community club. 

 

 

[wellfan]

Another "Motherwell man" with the Club's best interests at heart...or a delusional former Director encouraging others to sell the Club and Well Society up the river?

https://x.com/AndrewWilson/status/1809938150984175995

[steelboy]

Wilson is an investment banker so it's not a surprise he is in favour of this. When he did the independence economic plan for the SNP in 2017 it was austerity on steroids, he's not exactly a man of the people. 

[bobbybingo]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

Another "Motherwell man" with the Club's best interests at heart...or a delusional former Director encouraging others to sell the Club and Well Society up the river?

https://x.com/AndrewWilson/status/1809938150984175995

I'd love to hear him explain how we 'nourish the Society' by signing up to have it bled dry. 

[Big Wispy Flossy]

Post amended as issue resolved in a timely matter

[joewarkfanclub]

4 hours ago, dennyc said:

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.

Thats pretty close to my understanding of the situation. Hopefully others can confirm.

[joewarkfanclub]

8 minutes ago, Big Wispy Flossy said:

I have received paperwork from the club regarding the upcoming vote, but still to receive any information from the well society despite chasing it up twice. Given what’s at stake here, it’s incredibly poor customer service. 

for the record, I intend to vote against EB’s proposal. 

However, the well society need to be better on the administration side (the easy part) as if they can’t get that right now they have little hope of providing a viable alternative and growing income / fanbase in future.

My understanding is that the stuff from the Well Society will come out tomorrow in one email from the company who are carrying out the vote on their behalf.

Thats why they had to make a statement on the Barmack proposal as it was submitted too late to be included in the list of documents.

[Electric Blues]

19 minutes ago, Big Wispy Flossy said:

I have received paperwork from the club regarding the upcoming vote, but still to receive any information from the well society despite chasing it up twice. Given what’s at stake here, it’s incredibly poor customer service. 

for the record, I intend to vote against EB’s proposal. 

However, the well society need to be better on the administration side (the easy part) as if they can’t get that right now they have little hope of providing a viable alternative and growing income / fanbase in future.

The Society have previously stated that their "pack" would be made available for voting opening on Monday 8th July. As @joewarkfanclub says above, this will primarily be by email, from a third party. I can only assume that the club's paper-based  information was sent early, to allow for the possible vagaries of the post.

I certainly wouldn't go slagging off their administration based on this example, and certainly not when the other side have already made late and factually incorrect submissions to the process.

[Big Wispy Flossy]

The well society previously sent out an email saying that if no one had received any communication relating to the investment then they should email them. I did and never received any response. However on the back of my post I have since been contacted by some who are involved in the society, who have endeavoured to sort for me. I most certainly appreciate their involvement in rectifying for me. 
 

[Electric Blues]

All's well that ends well, then.

For anyone else still eagerly awaiting the info, this is what the Well Society email said. (Basically, if you haven't heard anything by next Thursday, 11th July, get in touch.)

 

[wellfan]

https://news.stv.tv/sport/prospective-motherwell-investors-shared-inaccurate-information-from-social-media

[David]

A few things worth bearing in mind as we all get set to vote:

1. The vote is about accepting the Barmacks offer, NOT choosing between the Barmacks offer and the Well Society offer.
2. If we vote against the Barmacks offer, it DOESN'T mean we have to stick with the Society plan. We can still seek other investments.
3. Some people are not impressed with either offer. That's okay. We can reject the Barmacks offer, continue as we are, and look for new opportunities.
4. If we vote to accept the Barmacks offer, that's final. We WON'T have another chance to bring in new investment later. We only get to sell half the club once.

[wunderwell]

7 hours 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. 

I said this before, way way back before it all started.

Not that I could have foreseen this - but what I pointed out is that a 75 year old man leading the way is a very dangerous thing.

At a certain point, they will want out. Cash in the chips and leave it all behind.

Therefore his influence is deliberate in order to exit and cash in on those chips.

The rest are sheep following his influence.

Maybe this is the first post we agree on and a new friendship is blossoming 😘

[wunderwell]

I think also when defeated a lot more people will restart or up the subscription.

Considering what Barmack is putting in, above needs taken into consideration.

[wellfan]

2 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

I think also when defeated a lot more people will restart or up the subscription.

Considering what Barmack is putting in, above needs taken into consideration.

Yep. I posted above that I'll likely be upping my direct debit to the WS if/once this investment nonsense is voted down. We need to put our money where our mouths are, where possible, and help. 

[dennyc]

6 minutes ago, David said:

A few things worth bearing in mind as we all get set to vote:

1. The vote is about accepting the Barmacks offer, NOT choosing between the Barmacks offer and the Well Society offer.
2. If we vote against the Barmacks offer, it DOESN'T mean we have to stick with the Society plan. We can still seek other investments.
3. Some people are not impressed with either offer. That's okay. We can reject the Barmacks offer, continue as we are, and look for new opportunities.
4. If we vote to accept the Barmacks offer, that's final. We WON'T have another chance to bring in new investment later. We only get to sell half the club once.

Can I add that if we reject the Wild Sheep offer, we are in no worse a position than we were before Mr and Mrs Barmack appeared on the scene. We must not lose sight of that fact.

Arguably we are positively in a much better position. Not only have we not lost any regular income streams, the financial situation has instead been much improved as a direct result of new TV and Commercial deals negotiated by the League Authorities. Income which our Club Board have shrouded in mystery. Topped up by around £250k due to Kelly and Bair bench warming for their International teams. AND, if strong rumours are to be believed Theo Bair will be off in a couple of weeks bringing in a further £1m or so. AND we still have Lennon Miller.

Add to that a much stronger and refocused Well Society off the field and a refreshed team on it following early transfer dealings.

In short, this is not a panic situation. We have time to restructure and secure outside investment on terms which will not bring about the likely demise of the Well Society. The Society vision is a good starting point but it is not a competition between the Society vision and the Wild Sheep proposal. Despite what some would have us believe.  We are voting solely on the proposal by Mr Barmack in the knowledge that other options are and will be available.

[wunderwell]

3 minutes ago, wellfan said:

Yep. I posted above that I'll likely be upping my direct debit to the WS if/once this investment nonsense is voted down. We need to put our money where our mouths are, where possible, and help. 

Plus 1.

[steelboy]

Quote

The content of the Barmack business plan has also sparked criticism. Plans include spending £600,000 on pre and post-match entertainment over the course of the investment period, almost a third of the money on offer.

Spending more on pre and post match entertainment than on our starting striker.

 

[wunderwell]

26 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Spending more on pre and post match entertainment than on our starting striker.

 

It's a very american trend. Soccer is a day out.
I don't disagree with him. I think the experience can be better.

(Obviously the financial package offered is a lot of crap, taking relevant positive ideas to nurture ourselves, all good)

[wunderwell]

19 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

It's a very american trend. Soccer is a day out.
I don't disagree with him. I think the experience can be better.

(Obviously the financial package offered is a lot of crap, taking relevant positive ideas to nurture ourselves, all good)

Some may disagree but to make things entertaining can come at no cost option.

5 mascots from each team against the goalkeeper coach etc etc

Experience of a life time for those kids too

[joewarkfanclub]

Absolutely no issues with trying to make the matchday experience more entertaining.

However, if you are going to throw £600k of the clubs money at it, you need to have a plan that shows the money spent will generate extra revenue otherwise its a bad investment.

Im not sure how many extra bums on seats that kind of thing can realistically manage or how else you monetise it.

But without seeing the workings behind it, I wont be buying into it.

[cambo97]

5 hours ago, Electric Blues said:

All's well that ends well, then.

For anyone else still eagerly awaiting the info, this is what the Well Society email said. (Basically, if you haven't heard anything by next Thursday, 11th July, get in touch.)

 

The shareholder info I have from the club says that voting closes at 12.00 noon on 22nd July, the WS voting would appear to also finish on the 22nd, it doesn't give them much time to get their voting in.

When it comes to the actual WS Shareholding vote is a straight majority of WS vote gets 100% of the shareholder vote. So it doesn't matter if the vote is 50.001 - 49.999% or 100-0% the shareholding vote would be the same?