New Investment Options

[wellup83]

12 hours ago, wellgirl said:

They are not involved in negotiations

Add neither should they be. Fan owned or not, divulging potentially sensitive information to the Society would be making details of the negotiations public knowledge basically. I'm more than happy to wait for the details then say yes or no. The one thing that worries me is do we have enough intelligent, level headed members to make an informed and correct choice for the good of the club when the time comes?

[Great Balls of Shire]

1 hour ago, Mintymac said:

Executive board seem to be doing what any other business would do in this type of negotiations.

outwith football Jim McMahon im  sure has  a knowledge of how this all works and I’m relatively relaxed .with how things are progressing .

For me a simple update is sufficient at this stage and as a £10 month Well Society member I’m not sure why I’d need to now much more at this stage of the negotiations or how my complete lack of knowledge on how these things work by throwing in my tuppence/thoughts would help proceedings 

Why don’t we just wait and see what the proposals are when finalised , see what the executive board recommend following these discussions then based on all that vote whatever way you think is best for the club going forward .

That tends to be how things work in any walk of life and as far as I can see this is no different .

Ok I get the anxiety some people may have at this stage about updates and info etc etc but that’s how business transaction’s/dealings  tend to work .

Im sure the executive board said they would be using a specialist /legal team to pour over the detail to prevent us being bitten or words to that effect

Dont think I need to know much more that that at this stage tbh .

So for the next 6 weeks think  we need to be patient . It’s not that long to wait tbh .

 

 

 

 

Well said, my thoughts too.

Can you imagine some of the folk on here involved in the negotiating, potential investors would turn and walk away

It's all down to the figures, if it's a relatively small investment for  relatively small control, I don't see an issue

If we want to stand still and probably regress as a team, we can reject ,the wsmodel doesn't work, that fact has been done to death 

Its fine picking holes in every plan but if there is nothing better out there?

Personally mid table or worse isn't very entertaining any more , a lot of people must feel that way, if the attendance is anything to go by

[Mintymac]

16 minutes ago, Great Balls of Shire said:

Well said, my thoughts too.

Can you imagine some of the folk on here involved in the negotiating, potential investors would turn and walk away

It's all down to the figures, if it's a relatively small investment for  relatively small control, I don't see an issue

If we want to stand still and probably regress as a team, we can reject ,the wsmodel doesn't work, that fact has been done to death 

Its fine picking holes in every plan but if there is nothing better out there?

Personally mid table or worse isn't very entertaining any more , a lot of people must feel that way, if the attendance is anything to go by

It would be fun to watch though some of the people who post on here sitting in the boardroom during commercial and legal proceedings . 
Id pay to watch that . Pure comedy  gold . 
Unfortunately £10 /month subscription wouldn’t get us a seat in the boardroom to watch that sketch 

[Kmcalpin]

The same could be said for many aspects of life such as juries and elections but we do live in a democratic society and thank goodness for that. We're a Jock Tamson"s bairns as they say. Everyone is entitled to a say. 

[StirlingDosser]

Okay here goes an essay...

As this progresses I find the society even more amateur and backpeddling from its failure. If the Well Society wasn't a failure this discussion wouldn't even be happening. The society are a group who have done very little in my view in recent years until the prospect of some external involvement knocking them off their perch. Saturday's Well Society day didn't convince me otherwise. The additional attention and focus they received on Saturday was considerably greater than our average match day sponsor (so I hope they stumped up an additional payment to the club for advertising, like we would ask of any sponsor). It can't be attractive to any investor I have to say when the organs of the club were promoting the alternative to investment throughout the day.

I was at Fir Park for the first time in a couple of years due to working abroad with a group of mates who support other provincial clubs and discussed all the politics of this probably in more depth than the match. When you are away for a while and come back it shows how we are falling behind the pack very quickly in terms of our facilities, budget and resilience. Before anyone gives us the "well rollercoaster" or "punching above out weight" lecture, let's look at three other clubs similar in size to us.

Dunfermline - relegated and not come back. 

Falkirk - just spent 8 years in league 1, lucky to still be on the go until their recent turn in fortunes - with the help of a blend of external investment and fan support 

Dundee United - the yo-yo club of the decade.

If Motherwell were in the situation of any of these clubs we would struggle to maintain ourselves without a shadow of doubt. All three of these clubs have different models and I accept that. But our budget and working capital differs to these three clubs as a result of top division TV money and away ticket revenue only. Our overall home ticket and commercial income is likey on a par. The additional investment is necessary or we will join that club, or likely be in even more of a right rope year on year financially than these guys as no fall guy would be there to cover the losses.

The Club needs to build a pathway towardsa substantial modernisation of our facilities and corporate operations. Our main training facilities are rented, our players are bussed between two sits for their training and we have a stadium which is in dire need of replacement once sentiments are put aside. We are simply no longer attractive to companies for corporate days or hospitality as we have such dated infrastructure. Once we have modernised infrastructure the club can start to widen its income and stability. 

The external investment at Dundee is being laughed at but I think long term as their project takes shape they will be the ones laughing. Unlike Aberdeen's new stadiums which have been proposed about 40 times, this genuinely seems to be making traction. We need to watch this as a "what could be" rather than looking at what is going wrong/has gone wrong elsewhere.

[steelboy]

So we are underperforming by out massively out performing Dundee United, Dunfermline and Falkirk?

You've not been near Fir Park in years but know exactly what the Society are doing wrong?

Nae bother mate.

 

 

[Great Balls of Shire]

10 minutes ago, steelboy said:

So we are underperforming by out massively out performing Dundee United, Dunfermline and Falkirk?

You've not been near Fir Park in years but know exactly what the Society are doing wrong?

Nae bother mate.

 

 

But you're always telling us what a poor team/ mgr we have

[Great Balls of Shire]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

The same could be said for many aspects of life such as juries and elections but we do live in a democratic society and thank goodness for that. We're a Jock Tamson"s bairns as they say. Everyone is entitled to a say. 

Good point but with juries, elections , the " facts" are laid out and people choose which way to go, we have no facts at minute, just rumours in a website

[Dee]

55 minutes ago, StirlingDosser said:

Okay here goes an essay...

As this progresses I find the society even more amateur and backpeddling from its failure. If the Well Society wasn't a failure this discussion wouldn't even be happening. The society are a group who have done very little in my view in recent years until the prospect of some external involvement knocking them off their perch. Saturday's Well Society day didn't convince me otherwise. The additional attention and focus they received on Saturday was considerably greater than our average match day sponsor (so I hope they stumped up an additional payment to the club for advertising, like we would ask of any sponsor). It can't be attractive to any investor I have to say when the organs of the club were promoting the alternative to investment throughout the day.

I was at Fir Park for the first time in a couple of years due to working abroad with a group of mates who support other provincial clubs and discussed all the politics of this probably in more depth than the match. When you are away for a while and come back it shows how we are falling behind the pack very quickly in terms of our facilities, budget and resilience. Before anyone gives us the "well rollercoaster" or "punching above out weight" lecture, let's look at three other clubs similar in size to us.

Dunfermline - relegated and not come back. 

Falkirk - just spent 8 years in league 1, lucky to still be on the go until their recent turn in fortunes - with the help of a blend of external investment and fan support 

Dundee United - the yo-yo club of the decade.

If Motherwell were in the situation of any of these clubs we would struggle to maintain ourselves without a shadow of doubt. All three of these clubs have different models and I accept that. But our budget and working capital differs to these three clubs as a result of top division TV money and away ticket revenue only. Our overall home ticket and commercial income is likey on a par. The additional investment is necessary or we will join that club, or likely be in even more of a right rope year on year financially than these guys as no fall guy would be there to cover the losses.

The Club needs to build a pathway towardsa substantial modernisation of our facilities and corporate operations. Our main training facilities are rented, our players are bussed between two sits for their training and we have a stadium which is in dire need of replacement once sentiments are put aside. We are simply no longer attractive to companies for corporate days or hospitality as we have such dated infrastructure. Once we have modernised infrastructure the club can start to widen its income and stability. 

The external investment at Dundee is being laughed at but I think long term as their project takes shape they will be the ones laughing. Unlike Aberdeen's new stadiums which have been proposed about 40 times, this genuinely seems to be making traction. We need to watch this as a "what could be" rather than looking at what is going wrong/has gone wrong elsewhere.

 

There's quite a lot to unpack there, some which I agree with and some which I don't. 

Let's start with where I do agree - in an ideal world it would be excellent to have our own training facility and the stadium needs modernised to an extent to make corporate days and hospitality more appealing. Both fair comments. 

Where I believe your argument falls down is the Dundee United comparison. Firstly, Dundee United are a much bigger club than Motherwell. Their average match-day attendance is almost double ours and their wage bill sits at £6.9million - significantly higher than ours. On top of that their recent annual accounts reported a £5m loss - up from £1.9m the year before - before player sales were taken into account. This all going on whilst under American ownership. In the 5 years under American ownership, United have experienced, as you rightly point out, relegation, they've had 6 different managers, protesting fans and have spent upwards of £10 million. 

Said American owner has continued spending and most worryingly has done this with an interest free loan against the club. I couldn't tell you the current total but a couple of years ago their accounts listed that the club owe said investor over £9m. How will they ever pay this back? Certainly a worrying situation. 

To quote a 'Well fan journo who penned this in a previous Herald article about United; 

"Wealthy benefactor? Check. Money being ploughed in? Check. Wages wildly exceeding turnover? Check. Careening through managers? Check. Success? That cheque is still in the post."

Now I know this thread is very much about Motherwell with the figures of our deal and details of the investors still to be presented to the wider fanbase, but it's certainly worth noting that not one American investor has brought notable success since they put their money into a Scottish football club. That success may come, but it's not guaranteed. 

And I'm not here to convince anyone that we shouldn't be entertaining any external investment, far from it. I think it's important we listen to all credible offers that come our way. I'm also not comparing the deal on the table at Fir Park to that at Dundee United, I'll wait until we all know the full facts. But I think it's hugely important to have a serious think about what our red lines are.

What do we value the football club at? What percentage of control would we be willing to relinquish and for what cost? What does any investor want to gain from putting their money into Motherwell FC? 

[Stuwell2]

Obviously we need to wait and see what the offer is and how it is structured but what do folk seriously think would be an acceptable level of investment for a minority control of the club?

I don’t know but the £300K per year mentioned earlier is less than 10% of our current turnover but if the £1.5M figure I seem to remember as our players wage bill is correct and the money all went to this then that’s a 20% increase. 

You could equate that to one extra player on just under £6K per week, two extra players on £3K or three extra players on £2K per week. Would bringing in one, two or three players who would accept these wages really change things or guarantee our top flight survival long term? I don’t think so. In which case what would be the point or worth of accepting such an offer?

[steelboy]

8 minutes ago, Great Balls of Shire said:

But you're always telling us what a poor team/ mgr we have

Playing side versus off field. 

Other than the takeover and the pitch fiasco I think the non playing side has been fine.

It's all worth bearing in mind that the Well Society doesn't have  majority control of the executive board. The club has been run by the exact same clique of people for the past 20 years. So blaming the Well Society for level of investment in corporate facilities is a clear sign someone doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.  

[StirlingDosser]

2 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Playing side versus off field. 

Other than the takeover and the pitch fiasco I think the non playing side has been fine.

It's all worth bearing in mind that the Well Society doesn't have  majority control of the executive board. The club has been run by the exact same clique of people for the past 20 years. So blaming the Well Society for level of investment in corporate facilities is a clear sign someone doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.  

I didn't blame the Well Society for a lack of investment in facilities. I pointed out that it has happened and needs addressed, and that is unlikely to happen under our current funding model. I'll just skip past the insult.

[steelboy]

3 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:

I don’t know but the £300K per year mentioned earlier is less than 10% of our current turnover but if the £1.5M figure I seem to remember as our players wage bill is correct and the money all went to this then that’s a 20% increase. 

 

The total wage bill for the club is £5 million per year. 

The player wage bill is far higher than £1.5m per season.

As I pointed out the other day we reported a (slightly) higher turnover and wage bill than our new CEO's old club Shrewsbury Town who are midtable in League One in England. It suits the club to have the support thinking we are operating on a shoe string budget but it's not true at all. 

[StirlingDosser]

7 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:

Obviously we need to wait and see what the offer is and how it is structured but what do folk seriously think would be an acceptable level of investment for a minority control of the club?

I don’t know but the £300K per year mentioned earlier is less than 10% of our current turnover but if the £1.5M figure I seem to remember as our players wage bill is correct and the money all went to this then that’s a 20% increase. 

You could equate that to one extra player on just under £6K per week, two extra players on £3K or three extra players on £2K per week. Would bringing in one, two or three players who would accept these wages really change things or guarantee our top flight survival long term? I don’t think so. In which case what would be the point or worth of accepting such an offer?

You're absolutely correct if we are aiming for the investment to be for the playing squad, but we have to modernise. If we were taking in say 300k a year investment (which is on the low side), that could allow us to gradually invest in modernisation of infrastructure over the coming years without impacting our current player budget. At present, any major 'patch up job' which needs done (of which in the future there will be a few big ones given the age of the Phil O'Donnell Stand for example), will likely lead to cuts to the recruitment budget.

[Kmcalpin]

30 minutes ago, steelboy said:

It's all worth bearing in mind that the Well Society doesn't have  majority control of the executive board.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it did. There are 3 directors, two of which come from the Society. The exception is Jim McMahon. I believe there are plans afoot to increase the size of the Board  

[stv]

4 hours ago, wellup83 said:

Add neither should they be. Fan owned or not, divulging potentially sensitive information to the Society would be making details of the negotiations public knowledge basically. I'm more than happy to wait for the details then say yes or no. The one thing that worries me is do we have enough intelligent, level headed members to make an informed and correct choice for the good of the club when the time comes?

Steelboy. He has all the answers bùt no solutions

[Great Balls of Shire]

2 hours ago, Dee said:

 

There's quite a lot to unpack there, some which I agree with and some which I don't. 

Let's start with where I do agree - in an ideal world it would be excellent to have our own training facility and the stadium needs modernised to an extent to make corporate days and hospitality more appealing. Both fair comments. 

Where I believe your argument falls down is the Dundee United comparison. Firstly, Dundee United are a much bigger club than Motherwell. Their average match-day attendance is almost double ours and their wage bill sits at £6.9million - significantly higher than ours. On top of that their recent annual accounts reported a £5m loss - up from £1.9m the year before - before player sales were taken into account. This all going on whilst under American ownership. In the 5 years under American ownership, United have experienced, as you rightly point out, relegation, they've had 6 different managers, protesting fans and have spent upwards of £10 million. 

Said American owner has continued spending and most worryingly has done this with an interest free loan against the club. I couldn't tell you the current total but a couple of years ago their accounts listed that the club owe said investor over £9m. How will they ever pay this back? Certainly a worrying situation. 

To quote a 'Well fan journo who penned this in a previous Herald article about United; 

"Wealthy benefactor? Check. Money being ploughed in? Check. Wages wildly exceeding turnover? Check. Careening through managers? Check. Success? That cheque is still in the post."

Now I know this thread is very much about Motherwell with the figures of our deal and details of the investors still to be presented to the wider fanbase, but it's certainly worth noting that not one American investor has brought notable success since they put their money into a Scottish football club. That success may come, but it's not guaranteed. 

And I'm not here to convince anyone that we shouldn't be entertaining any external investment, far from it. I think it's important we listen to all credible offers that come our way. I'm also not comparing the deal on the table at Fir Park to that at Dundee United, I'll wait until we all know the full facts. But I think it's hugely important to have a serious think about what our red lines are.

What do we value the football club at? What percentage of control would we be willing to relinquish and for what cost? What does any investor want to gain from putting their money into Motherwell FC? 

I must admit I hadn't even thought about Dundee Utd, that's where the due diligence would need to be spot on

Hopefully we wouldn't be signing forwards on between 4 and  8 k per week...it was ridiculous they were relegated with the wage bill they had.

[ropy]

1 hour ago, Great Balls of Shire said:

I must admit I hadn't even thought about Dundee Utd, that's where the due diligence would need to be spot on

Hopefully we wouldn't be signing forwards on between 4 and  8 k per week...it was ridiculous they were relegated with the wage bill they had.

That is my concern, we receive a bit of money, we attract ‘better’ players on higher wages and this becomes the norm when the money disappears.  We need to understand the lifespan of any investment and the exit strategy once the fun stops.

I would rather we received some money for some American with Scottish heritage to show off to his pals for a couple of years then disappear than some investor thinking there is money to be made.  I would also rather any money went into the infrastructure of the club and the stadium and leave the players on the pitch to be paid for by us punters, sponsorship etc i.e keep our running costs at a sustainable level but take advantage of the opportunity to secure our long term future.

[David]

7 hours ago, wellup83 said:

Add neither should they be.

No, they most definitely should be involved in the discussions and proceedings. As majority shareholders, that should be a given. 

7 hours ago, wellup83 said:

Fan owned or not, divulging potentially sensitive information to the Society would be making details of the negotiations public knowledge basically.

There's a difference between the elected representatives of the Society board being involved in proceedings and any information being divulged to the wider membership base. 

[steelboy]

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it did. There are 3 directors, two of which come from the Society. The exception is Jim McMahon. I believe there are plans afoot to increase the size of the Board  

Jay from the Society board posted this on P&B on the 5th of March.

Quote

The short answer to your question is no, the Executive Board call the shots with regards to the football club, not the Well Society Board. The setup - certainly since I've been involved - has been a five person Executive Board with the Well Society possessing two seats. The Chairman throughout that time has not been a Well Society representative. This has essentially meant that the Well Society Board can make a case to its two representatives on the Executive Board for something, while hoping that that they then make that case on the Society's behalf within the club boardroom. But even if they do, there's no guarantee that the Executive Board will make anything of it.

So the Well Society don't have control over the Executive Board despite owning 70% of the club. McMahon is one of the three non WS Executive Board members, the other two are a mystery to me and don't seem to be listed anywhere on the club website.

Again this is another example of why we are miles away from being able to have an informed and responsible debate about any proposals. There's very little accurate information available about the club and Society's financial position and structure and there are a lot of wrong assumptions out there amongst the support which is entirely down to the club and Society choosing to keep us in the dark. The argument has always been that Society members don't need to be involved in the day to day decision making of the club which everyone agrees with but the structure and overall financial position of the Society and club should be available and easy to understand for members.

I'd like to see the Society set out a few points which I think would clear things up.

1. The overall profit/loss since the Society became majority shareholders. I've seen people say on P&B that we are in profit over the period, other people say it's unsustainable. Which is it?

2. What is the playing budget and add some context because £2.3m or £2.8m doesn't really mean much but pointing out clubs which spend a roughly equivalent amount in Scotland, England and Europe would give us a good idea of where we stand.

3. How much funding have the Society given the club directly and in loans? How much have the Society given to the Community Trust?

4. Why do the Society board feel we are best represented by having a minority position on the club executive board? 

If the Society board answer these questions we would all have a clearer idea of how fan ownership is working.

[fizoxy]

Hopefully things will be clearer when the Well Society complete their governance work stream, but some folk could do with learning what boards, executives, and shareholders do in general.

 

[David]

1 minute ago, fizoxy said:

Hopefully things will be clearer when the Well Society complete their governance work stream, but some folk could do with learning what boards, executives, and shareholders do in general.

I'm not really sure it's on fans to learn what boards, executives, and shareholders do, though. It's on the club and our representatives to convey the required information clearly and in a way that can be understood by the wider fanbase.

As you say, the Society has certainly grabbed the bull by the horns when it comes to the way they want to do things moving forward, so let's hope that a lot of what people on this forum and elsewhere are asking gets answered over the coming weeks and months.

[Casagolda]

Here is a question then.

If the Well Society doesn't have a majority on the board. Can the board issue new shares and sell them to an investor without the approval of the Well Society?

[steelboy]

4 minutes ago, Casagolda said:

Here is a question then.

If the Well Society doesn't have a majority on the board. Can the board issue new shares and sell them to an investor without the approval of the Well Society?

No shareholders need to approve that. 

[Kmcalpin]

If we do indeed have 5 Directors on the Executive Board, who are the other two? It's a simple question and in no way breaching confidentialities. I'm aware that Andrew Wilson resigned a wee while ago.