New Investment Options

[Kmcalpin]

Yes, these changes have to be made as soon as practicably possible to allow us to move forward and re-create unity. They should be done in a civilised professional manner. 

[Mintymac]

We can obviously learn lessons from what happened over last few weeks but not to the point of obsession . That’s the past now let’s look ahead to the future with a revitalised WS board , executive board and even more importantly in my opinion an enthused and hopefully more engaged WS membership  pulling together as one .
The WS board as  excellent  as they have done are only as strong as its members and this has proved to be the case of late.

I know it’s an old cliche but our strength moving forward will be down to our unity and engagement as one .

Let’s keep this energy going forward, , thank the WS board for working on our behalf and push on with the plans outlined in the WS document.
Let’s get right behind them the CEO and whoever will be the new Chair . 
They deserve that chance

[Dee]

@Mintymac, absolutely spot on. Any membership organisation is only as strong as it's members to an extent and it's more than important than ever that we all push forward collectively to grow fan-ownership and the football club.

What I've been really impressed with in recent weeks and months is how many people have came forward to offer their skills, expertise and time. It's really important that we utilise our membership. We've got over 4,000 members and we need to find out what people can bring to the table. That doesn't necessarily mean sitting on a board or attending meetings every week, but it could be lending your skills to a project, giving pointers or opening doors etc. 

As a Society Board member (for now 😊), I'd like to thank all members of The Well Society who engaged in the process regardless of opinion. 

It’s been a costly, time-consuming and emotionally draining exercise, but this has been fan-ownership in action It’s energised members, improved communication and boosted numbers. In my opinion, it’s a really positive time to be a Well fan and I hope everyone can start pulling in the same direction. 

Attention now immediately turns to delivering, alongside the Chief Executive and a new club board, on the strategy set out in our plan. 

We've also got the opportunity for members to join the board with elections in the coming weeks. If anyone is considering standing and would like to discuss what that may entail if you are successful, feel free to reach out. 

Another reminder that our Annual General Meeting will take place on Monday 12 August 2024. I'd really encourage all members who can attend to sign up and come along. 

If you’ve not already, please consider joining The Well Society, or if you are already a member please consider upping your subscription. Happy to answer any questions.

[santheman]

I still don't know why McMahon Dickie and Feeley thought this deal would be good for the club but am prepared to cut them some slack as I think in their own minds they must have genuinely (but foolishly) thought it was the best way forward.

The 3 of them are died in the wool 'Well fans so why would they want something that would harm the club they've supported all their lives, that's the thing I can't get my head around.

Regardless of that I would like to think that they will now do the right thing and resign their positions and allow the new kids on the block to pick up the reigns and drive the club forward but be there for any help or advice they are asked for because at the end of the day they have been relatively successful at running the club regardless of recent events.

What we don't want is some kind of power struggle.

[Busta Nut]

McMahon is outgoing. Dickie has quit the WS so his place on the exec board should be removed and Feeley should be removed as chair if he doesn't believe in the WS. He's welcome to finish his term and stand for re-election. 

[Electric Blues]

3 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

McMahon is outgoing. Dickie has quit the WS so his place on the exec board should be removed and Feeley should be removed as chair if he doesn't believe in the WS. He's welcome to finish his term and stand for re-election. 

Mr Feely can only dream of a mere 80-20 split in any such election!

[steelboy]

44 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

McMahon is outgoing. Dickie has quit the WS so his place on the exec board should be removed and Feeley should be removed as chair if he doesn't believe in the WS. He's welcome to finish his term and stand for re-election. 

I would guess this will be sorted before the Well Society AGM or there will be a few resolutions that embarrass the three of them.

 

[Villageman]

We currently have 7 WS Board members. One, Markus Schieren is NOT seeking re-election. Two,  Derek Watson IS seeking re-election. The other 5  are in their 3 year elected cycle so the Board member who was in favour of the Barmack proposal will need to be forced to resign or they will be in place for the next two years. Will ordinary members present at the AGM act accordingly ?.   

[StAndrew7]

13 minutes ago, Villageman said:

We currently have 7 WS Board members. One, Markus Schieren is NOT seeking re-election. Two,  Derek Watson IS seeking re-election. The other 5  are in their 3 year elected cycle so the Board member who was in favour of the Barmack proposal will need to be forced to resign or they will be in place for the next two years. Will ordinary members present at the AGM act accordingly ?.   

There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone holding a contradictory opinion to the majority whilst sitting on a board, in fact, I personally see it as quite a healthy thing. Otherwise nothing would be critiqued appropriately and it would just get nodded through.

If Feely is willing to say publicly that he is 100% supportive of the direction the Society is wanting to move in, then I don't have an issue with him remaining on the WS Board.

I do have an issue with him remaining as Chair and as an Exec Board representative, however.

My biggest issue is with Dickie and McMahon.

[Villageman]

13 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone holding a contradictory opinion to the majority whilst sitting on a board, in fact, I personally see it as quite a healthy thing. Otherwise nothing would be critiqued appropriately and it would just get nodded through.

If Feely is willing to say publicly that he is 100% supportive of the direction the Society is wanting to move in, then I don't have an issue with him remaining on the WS Board.

I do have an issue with him remaining as Chair and as an Exec Board representative, however.

My biggest issue is with Dickie and McMahon.

Do you see him being removed as Chair and remaining as a member of the Board. I too have a healthy respect for differing opinions but not publicly as in this case.

[dennyc]

29 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone holding a contradictory opinion to the majority whilst sitting on a board, in fact, I personally see it as quite a healthy thing. Otherwise nothing would be critiqued appropriately and it would just get nodded through.

If Feely is willing to say publicly that he is 100% supportive of the direction the Society is wanting to move in, then I don't have an issue with him remaining on the WS Board.

I do have an issue with him remaining as Chair and as an Exec Board representative, however.

My biggest issue is with Dickie and McMahon.

I trust it is up to the Society Board to select who they choose to represent the WS on the Club Board. Following the upcoming elections. For practical reasons that might not have been 100% the case on day one.

Given how things transpired of late I don't see how Tom Feely can remain in that position though. Trust is a huge thing. As for Dickie, why on earth is he still on the Exec Board having resigned from the WS Board? I am guessing he is still in position although hopefully someone can confirm otherwise. I had hoped he would do the decent thing and resign from both.

The worry I have is that not enough of the revised WS Board will feel qualified enough, or be able to afford the time, to cover both positions. Perhaps that is one reason the WS were seeking specific skill sets from those putting their names forward?

 

 

[StAndrew7]

His disagreement being public isn't helping nor do I necessarily agree with it. However, if he's willing to acknowledge that it was mistake and support the Society moving forward, I would say he should see out his term and then if he wishes stand again.

The Society Board are, I would imagine, holding off on any new Chairperson appointments prior to the next round of elections to see who is elected and what sort of skillset the new members bring.

As for the Exec Board, I'd need to go back and check what the new AOA are in terms of minimum numbers for a quorum etc.

[wellwell91]

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong 

The 3 WS board members who voted for this deal were the 3 WS members on the executive board

I assume that the executive board has a financial director who advises them.

Maybe they were guided by his presentation of the club’s financial position.

Could be totally wrong and we’re just a Mickey Mouse outfit and don’t have a financial director. 

[StirlingDosser]

Not all Society members were against the proposal so to force society board members out would be wrong and sums up what was wrong with this entire debate within our support. If anything the Society board absolutely needs a range of views given how horrifically this was all managed. 

[StAndrew7]

3 minutes ago, wellwell91 said:

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong 

The 3 WS board members who voted for this deal were the 3 WS members on the executive board

I assume that the executive board has a financial director who advises them.

Maybe they were guided by his presentation of the club’s financial position.

Could be totally wrong and we’re just a Mickey Mouse outfit and don’t have a financial director. 

Only two WS Board members were on the Exec: Dickie and Feely. Dickie resigned as a WS Board member.

The Club's Financial Director, David Lindsay, sits on the Exec Board. He was appointed at the same time as Brian Caldwell.

Just now, StirlingDosser said:

Not all Society members were against the proposal so to force society board members out would be wrong and sums up what was wrong with this entire debate within our support. If anything the Society board absolutely needs a range of views given how horrifically this was all managed. 

Agreed; a healthy board/management group is made up of a broad range of expertise, experience and views. It should be the same for the Exec Board, too.

[dennyc]

25 minutes ago, StirlingDosser said:

Not all Society members were against the proposal so to force society board members out would be wrong and sums up what was wrong with this entire debate within our support. If anything the Society board absolutely needs a range of views given how horrifically this was all managed. 

Of course WS Board Members are entitled to a range of views. Essential for healthy debate and I hope different viewpoints continue to be openly expressed.

But can I ask you? Should  those WS Board Members who represent Society members on the Exec Board seek the views of the WS Board and ultimately the fans before voting on something as important as handing control of the Club to an external investor, reducing shareholder % and writing of debts? And if they do seek guidance should they go against the majority wishes of the WS Board?

My view is they should have abstained from that vote citing the need to refer to the WS Board. The Club Exec would have still carried the day 3-0 but at least the Society would not have been seen to be supporting the deal, as it must have appeared to Barmack.

Dickie and Feely either did not seek the views of their own Board or chose to ignore those views. That is the issue here.  Not whether they hold different opinions. 

[Villageman]

33 minutes ago, StirlingDosser said:

Not all Society members were against the proposal so to force society board members out would be wrong and sums up what was wrong with this entire debate within our support. If anything the Society board absolutely needs a range of views given how horrifically this was all managed. 

Agree the Society board should have a range of views but for me once making their recommendation for a rejection by a majority vote absolutely clear should not be free to back acceptance by another group.

[StAndrew7]

11 minutes ago, Villageman said:

Agree the Society board should have a range of views but for me once making their recommendation for a rejection by a majority vote absolutely clear should not be free to back acceptance by another group.

From what I understand, the Exec Board voted before the WS Board did to reject it, which I think is what @dennyc is alluding to, as well. I believe the HoT were presented to the WS Board after the Exec Board had voted on it, too.

I think this was clarified by a few folk who asked Feely at the WS engagement session a few weeks ago.

It does make it worse that they voted on it without discussing the views of the majority of the WS Board. They could have at least abstained.

[Busta Nut]

Feeley should not be chair.

We cannot have the head of the Society a bloke who doesn't believe in the purpose of the society.

 

[StirlingDosser]

11 hours ago, dennyc said:

Of course WS Board Members are entitled to a range of views. Essential for healthy debate and I hope different viewpoints continue to be openly expressed.

But can I ask you? Should  those WS Board Members who represent Society members on the Exec Board seek the views of the WS Board and ultimately the fans before voting on something as important as handing control of the Club to an external investor, reducing shareholder % and writing of debts? And if they do seek guidance should they go against the majority wishes of the WS Board?

My view is they should have abstained from that vote citing the need to refer to the WS Board. The Club Exec would have still carried the day 3-0 but at least the Society would not have been seen to be supporting the deal, as it must have appeared to Barmack.

Dickie and Feely either did not seek the views of their own Board or chose to ignore those views. That is the issue here.  Not whether they hold different opinions. 

It is a good point. And the reality of us on this forum will have no experience of boardroom politics or how boardroom affairs are conducted. It may be that this is a learning curve for the society on how to structure and conduct its business. Perhaps some sort of constitution amendment which obliged the WS exec board members to act on the instruction on whatever the consensus is of the WS board. 

In relation to Dickie, I have asked the question before, why is it he is always on or around the board, like his father before he passed? If they have done something significant for the club I'd accept that but I'm not seeing what. Was he elected by the Well Society?

[dennyc]

8 hours ago, StirlingDosser said:

It is a good point. And the reality of us on this forum will have no experience of boardroom politics or how boardroom affairs are conducted. It may be that this is a learning curve for the society on how to structure and conduct its business. Perhaps some sort of constitution amendment which obliged the WS exec board members to act on the instruction on whatever the consensus is of the WS board. 

In relation to Dickie, I have asked the question before, why is it he is always on or around the board, like his father before he passed? If they have done something significant for the club I'd accept that but I'm not seeing what. Was he elected by the Well Society?

Fair comment and hopefully guidelines that do not have any grey areas. As long as lessons are learned. Clearly any Society Rep on the Exec Board must have some autonomy but there has to be aspects that need referral to the Society Board/Members..

My understanding is that Dickie and Feely were originally placed on the Exec Board purely as representatives of the Society. (Stand to be corrected if not the case). Might have been seen as 'needs must' at the time given the requirement for experience and a link to enable communication between two areas. Were there any other realistic options at the time? From memory, No, but there has been plenty of time since then to make changes had the willing and the abilities been present. In any event the Society reps must surely not be chosen by the Football Club? Conflict of interest and all that.

  Given that Dickie is no longer on the Society Board I would think his right to be on the Club Board must have gone and he should be replaced by a Society Nominee. But there will be protocols and timings to be followed?  Maybe to drive such a change in future, those amendments you mention need to be exact. That said, Dickie may have inherited his father's 10,000 shares so maybe that affords him Board rights outwith the Society connection? 

Over time I am of the opinion both Feely and Dickie tended to side with the Club Chairman irrespective of the impact on the Society. The transfer of funds and the Wild Sheep proposal being prime examples. Hopefully everything can be properly addressed following the Society AGM. As you mentioned earlier, nobody should be hounded out. But anyone trusted to represent the Society must represent Society values and be able to resist the demands of the Club Chairman when appropriate.

[steelboy]

The news today about Bordeaux and Inverness just reinforces that we made the correct decision and how irresponsible McMahon and his cronies were. 

 

[Tamwell]

On 7/26/2024 at 7:14 PM, steelboy said:

The news today about Bordeaux and Inverness just reinforces that we made the correct decision and how irresponsible McMahon and his cronies were. 

 

I’ll bet Inverness fans wish they had fan ownership. 

[steelboy]

Not an investment issue but I saw on Twitter today that u14s need to be accompanied by an adult to get in the ground now. That seems a bit needless. 

[wellup83]

That's McMahon officially resigned. The takeover aside, I thank him for his service to the club and wish him all the best for the future.

https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/08/01/jim-mcmahon-steps-down-as-chairman/