New Investment Options

[StAndrew7]

7 hours ago, cambo97 said:

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?

Correct; the WS shares vote as a block as a result of the vote in whatever way the majority wants.

[Kmcalpin]

Thats correct StAndrew7.

However a very close vote would be disastrous for everyone and leave many fans unhappy. The support would be divided. Lets hope for a clear result either way. I know its very unlikely but what would happen in the event of a 50/50 evenly split vote? The worst possible scenario  

[santheman]

30 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Thats correct StAndrew7.

However a very close vote would be disastrous for everyone and leave many fans unhappy. The support would be divided. Lets hope for a clear result either way. I know its very unlikely but what would happen in the event of a 50/50 evenly split vote? The worst possible scenario  

McMahon would probably claim the casting vote.

[StAndrew7]

Brian McCafferty speaks out.

That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list.

[wellfan]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Brian McCafferty speaks out.

That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list.

Jim would probably send a birthday card and claim it to be a Christmas card. 

[Throughthelaces]

I decided to vote against it personally after some thought. I like the Societys plan but I do want the club to work on financial security so we’re safe in the event of relegation while actively working to avoid it. I want the well society to start acting like the custodians and have control of the club board as well. They own 70% surely they can appoint a chairman themselves. 

[wellfan]

I've just received the investment ballot email from Civica on behalf of the Well Society. 

Vote to reject the offer. It's our Club. 

[mothman]

Former Motherwell chairman sends stark warning over deal with American investors

By Gavin McCafferty, PA

July 08, 2024 at 8:56am BST

Former Motherwell chairman Brian McCafferty has urged fans not to risk the financial future of the club by handing control to American TV executive Erik Barmack.

The Motherwell board recommends shareholders accept a £1.95million offer from Wild Sheep Sports, a firm created by Barmack and his wife, Courtney, for a 47 per cent stake.

However, the board of the Well Society, the fan-run majority shareholder, has urged its members to reject the plan in a ballot which opened on Monday morning. Their decision will decide the outcome.

McCafferty, who previously chaired both the Motherwell and Well Society boards, said: “The Wild Sheep offer would put fan ownership and the financial future of Motherwell at major risk.

“The revision to allow the Well Society to retain slightly more than half of the shares is largely symbolic as the deal immediately hands Wild Sheep effective control.

“Although both groups will have three representatives on the board, Erik Barmack will have a casting vote as chairman and the deal stipulates that Wild Sheep will develop overall strategy in conjunction with two club executives. The Well Society is only entitled to ‘discuss’ these key decisions.

“Much has been made of the independence of the two club employees on the board, but people come and go at football clubs all the time – especially if they disagree with the chairman – and Wild Sheep could appoint any replacements. So it’s unquestionably boardroom control.

“There are other factors that risk fan ownership, including what happens if the Well Society misses its financial obligations to almost match the Barmacks’ investment. This remains unclear, and I’d expect many fans would stop paying subscriptions if control is handed to an overseas investor.

“Fans would have no say over other investors Erik Barmack has talked about introducing and Wild Sheep could be entitled to take a share of the club’s profits after year six.”

Both the Well Society and Wild Sheep unveiled business plans last week. The fan group is focused on growing support in Lanarkshire and becoming a “community anchor” while utilising “strategic partnerships”. The Barmack plan is focused on growing the global fanbase through marketing and media strategies.

 

“I find it strange that there is a drive to rush this deal through when the club is financially stable,” said McCafferty, who brokered a takeover deal with Les Hutchison in 2015 that saw the latter avert a financial crisis for Motherwell and steer the club towards fan ownership.

“The Wild Sheep plan outlines almost £4million of spending on projects inside three years – yet the Barmacks are only investing £900,000 during this period.

“The nature of many of the plans, such as spending £600,000 on pre-match and post-match entertainment, casts major doubt on the financial viability of the project. There is a real chance the club would need further funding which could leave it in serious trouble or again dilute fans’ share.

“The deal was always going to be a gamble. Fans would be putting their own money and the club’s finances in the hands of someone with no track record in football. By the looks of the Wild Sheep plan, it’s a massive gamble and I urge Motherwell fans to reject the offer.

“The Well Society plan is a highly considered approach and I know there have been alternative financial options emerging during this process that could provide some security for the club without the risks inherent in the Wild Sheep offer. There is absolutely no need to rush into this deal.”

In a statement on Friday, the Motherwell board said: “Within the Barmacks’ and the Well Society’s business plans, there are lots of interesting ideas. We welcome both.

“Having studied both at length, it is our view that combining these ideas, locally and internationally, gives us the best chance of broadening our reach and appeal, and therefore generating additional revenues.”

[steelboy]

44 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Brian McCafferty speaks out.

That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list.

That's a great statement to make today. Compare it to Wilson who had nothing substantial to say and there's surely only one way for sensible fans to vote. 

I've already got my Reject vote in. 

[Raoul_Duke]

Just had the Civica email through to vote, it went into my junk folder just to forewarn anyone that possibly thinks they haven't received it to check! Should come through from takepart@cesvotes.com 

I've voted to reject the Wild Sheep offer as both a Well Society member and as a shareholder, I'd urge anyone still undecided to look at how heavily weighted towards the incoming party that this 'offer' is. The 2yr buyback option for instance means the Society would be out of pocket to the tune of £1m. The Barmack's would leave with the £600k they would've put in by then?!

Giving an incoming chairman casting vote and control of the board from day one on an 8% shareholding wouldn't fly in any other business and it shouldn't do here either! 

[Well-Made]

Email in and after much deliberation and back and fro (not really), I decided to accept to reject the offer.

[StAndrew7]

2 minutes ago, Well-Made said:

Email in and after much deliberation and back and fro (not really), I decided to accept to reject the offer.

You really had me going there 🤣

[StAndrew7]

Jim McMahon's message.

I feel famous; he's even quoted me:

Quote

Point two, why do this now?

We don’t need to. And here my words “We have enough money to see us through this season and a bit of next” have been quoted and it’s been suggested they should be “Shouted from the rooftops.”

They are completely accurate and I agree they should be shouted out. Everyone involved in getting us into that position should be proud of what has been achieved over the seven years of fan ownership. But my next sentence should be included for balance.

“You get the best deal when you don’t need the money – if you do need money the terms will be much less attractive.”

This is an attempt to move away from season-to-season budgeting to a more sustainable basis.

  

On 7/5/2024 at 11:32 AM, StAndrew7 said:

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]

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

Brian McCafferty speaks out.

That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list.

The one paragraph in this puts in a nutshell for me and I must admit I had missed it.

Wild sheep outlines investment of almost £4 in 3 years of which the split is £900k from Barmack RESULTING in £3m from WS. Quite clearly if we can generate £3m we do not need Wild Sheep.

[steelboy]

McMahon

"As has been pointed out, this is a vote on the Barmark proposal not the WS outline plan. But there is one key area where some read across is vital – new investment."

Translation: This vote isn't about the Well Society plan but i'm going to make it about that anyway because I'm bitter and desperate. 

Talking about 'stringent safeguards' days after Barmack has published a business plan which commits to spending millions more than he is putting into the club is absurd and hypocritical. The club and Barmack's unprofessional behaviour during this process has been the biggest boost the Society could have hoped for. 

[Villageman]

38 minutes ago, Well-Made said:

Email in and after much deliberation and back and fro (not really), I decided to accept to reject the offer.

Hope your vote is a bit clearer.

[StAndrew7]

4 minutes ago, steelboy said:

McMahon

"As has been pointed out, this is a vote on the Barmark proposal not the WS outline plan. But there is one key area where some read across is vital – new investment."

Translation: This vote isn't about the Well Society plan but i'm going to make it about that anyway because I'm bitter and desperate. 

Talking about 'stringent safeguards' days after Barmack has published a business plan which commits to spending millions more than he is putting into the club is absurd and hypocritical. The club and Barmack's unprofessional behaviour during this process has been the biggest boost the Society could have hoped for. 

Mate, his name's Barmark; can't you read? I think we've all been duped here and Eric Barmark is the actual investor.

[Electric Blues]

18 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I feel famous; he's even quoted me

Technically speaking, he's MISQUOTED you, by not including your "colourful metaphors", as Mr Spock once described them.

[wellfan]

54 minutes ago, steelboy said:

That's a great statement to make today. Compare it to Wilson who had nothing substantial to say and there's surely only one way for sensible fans to vote. 

I've already got my Reject vote in. 

It is indeed a great statement, and very well-timed.

Wilson has shown himself to be a compliant yes-man who’s never had to deal with the consequences of his actions in business. Add to that, McMahon must send excellent birthday cards. 

[Villageman]

Further to my earlier post I would like to add £3m ie £1m per year is around 5 times the current financial support WS receives so its plan to increase income would still be needed even with Barmack on board.

[StAndrew7]

14 minutes ago, Electric Blues said:

Technically speaking, he's MISQUOTED you, by not including your "colourful metaphors", as Mr Spock once described them.

Pity, I felt that's the bit that really helped hammer the message home.

[weeyin]

[steelboy]

The response on Twitter to the outgoing chairman's statement is quite something.

I've obviously been keeping an eye on this for a while and on Twitter I've been noticing an increase in the number of fans favouring reject over the last week or so. And the flip side is no increase at all in accept as far as I can tell. Facebook might be different but I stay well clear of that. 

[Cameron_Mcd]

1 minute ago, steelboy said:

The response on Twitter to the outgoing chairman's statement is quite something.

I've obviously been keeping an eye on this for a while and on Twitter I've been noticing an increase in the number of fans favouring reject over the last week or so. And the flip side is so increase at all in accept as far as I can tell. Facebook might be different but I stay well clear of that. 

Gavin McCafferty's post pointing out the inaccuracies in the Barmack plan seems to have been the tipping point for a good few on the fence.

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, steelboy said:

The response on Twitter to the outgoing chairman's statement is quite something.

I've obviously been keeping an eye on this for a while and on Twitter I've been noticing an increase in the number of fans favouring reject over the last week or so. And the flip side is so increase at all in accept as far as I can tell. Facebook might be different but I stay well clear of that. 

I did a bit of "informing" on FB last night to one of the (many) Colins who seem to be in favour; turns out he doesn't have a vote. 🤔 😅

I kept going, as it felt like getting as much information/explanation out there was a good idea.