New Investment Options

[steelboy]

35 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

When did he promote the idea of giving an American the majority shareholding?

The video he paid for that says we are looking for American investment. 

[wellgirl]

20 minutes ago, steelboy said:

The video he paid for that says we are looking for American investment. 

That's not the case. It was a light hearted comment about Taylor Swift. 

[joewarkfanclub]

Just went back and watched the video again (yes, I know!) and whilst the video is clearly aimed at US investors, it doesnt at any point actually stipulate that AND it finishes by making an appeal to ANYONE with money that would see us as an attractive proposition.

Not really sure what Steelboys angle is here. I agree we need to be wary about the type of investor we attract and that we should certainly be carrying out due dilligence surrounding the individual/group and the offer, but there is nothing I've seen to suggest that we arent doing that and the Well Society certainly arent sending out those kind of signals.

No need to be getting our knickers in a twist until we have something to deliberate over.

 

[dennyc]

3 minutes ago, steelboy said:

The video he paid for that says we are looking for American investment. 

Why is it such a big deal for you that he supposedly paid for the video? I can imagine your comments had he used Club funds bearing in mind our financial situation? Do you think we don't need external investment? I suppose it all adds to your conspiracy theory though. If you have concrete evidence that McMahon is not acting in what he believes to be the best interest of Motherwell FC, then share it.

And I'm pretty sure the request for investment was not limited to America.

 

Did you have the same issues when a former Director personally funded a players wage deal?

 

 

 

[bobbybingo]

39 minutes ago, steelboy said:

The video he paid for that says we are looking for American investment. 

Ok. Can you quote the bit where anyone says anything about selling them majority shareholding, or is that just your personal take on what he meant?

[Spiderpig]

9 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

Ok. Can you quote the bit where anyone says anything about selling them majority shareholding, or is that just your personal take on what he meant?

Engaging in a debate with steelboy is like talking to Grandpa Simpson 2 posts in and its all meaningless drivel, you need to stop feeding the Trolls.

[wellgirl]

15 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

Ok. Can you quote the bit where anyone says anything about selling them majority shareholding, or is that just your personal take on what he meant?

It's rumours from someone in the "know" who has been tweeting the same thing.  Conspiracy theory rubbish. Just because they don't want outside investment doesn't mean other people can't make up their own mind. 

[Motherwellfc1991]

Can someone inform me who actually sits on the ‘club’ board and who makes up the well society board after the recent appointments and are there individuals that  sit on both? 

 

i joined the society way back when it was launched and paid a decent monthly contribution for a good few years but I’ve never had an email or anything from them since the joining pack - ever !! I even used the email address posted here recently and still haven’t heard back. Because I don’t contribute now does that mean I don’t have voting rights anymore  ?

The reason I stopped contributing was mainly because the society had a spell of appointing their ‘own men’ onto the board with no consultation with its members ( this is possibly written into the constitution) and in my opinion it became a puppet for Alan burrows and a couple of others to easily influence !!!

The structure and the society’s medium and long term strategy will go a long way in me deciding how i vote ( if I’m allowed) and whether I start contributing again. 
 

I may be looking in the wrong places but so far it’s a bit like a general election with more being said about the potential investment by society members that I’m aware of than how the society is going to be successful moving forward - does the society have a written strategic plan for the future ?

[Cameron_Mcd]

10 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Can someone inform me who actually sits on the ‘club’ board and who makes up the well society board after the recent appointments and are there individuals that  sit on both? 

The Exec board is Jim McMahon, Tom Feely, Douglas Dickie and then the incoming CEO. 

The Well Society board consists of Sean Baillie, Douglas Dickie, Maureen Downie, Tom Feely, Jay Henderson, Amber Johnstone, Markus Schieren, Philip Speedie and Derek Watson.

 

A bit of info on all the members of the Society board

[texanwellfan]

 I saw 1.5 million quoted as the proposed investment over a few years but not sure if that’s correct. We need all the help we can get but that amount doesn’t get me too excited. I could probably run through 1.5 Million nae bother in 3 years by myself. Now 1.5 million a year is getting better but not sure it’s “life changing” for Motherwell FC but could be enough so that we don’t have to worry so much about falling out of existence. Whether it’s 1.5 million a year or over a few years, I don’t think that’s enough to warrant giving up controlling share. I understand it’s not just money but also the integrity and intentions of the investor. All things being equal and asssuming the integrity of the investor I’d be looking for much larger investment than 1.5 million to give up controlling interest. 

[Mccus28]

6 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

 I saw 1.5 million quoted as the proposed investment over a few years but not sure if that’s correct. We need all the help we can get but that amount doesn’t get me too excited. I could probably run through 1.5 Million nae bother in 3 years by myself. Now 1.5 million a year is getting better but not sure it’s “life changing” for Motherwell FC but could be enough so that we don’t have to worry so much about falling out of existence. Whether it’s 1.5 million a year or over a few years, I don’t think that’s enough to warrant giving up controlling share. I understand it’s not just money but also the integrity and intentions of the investor. All things being equal and asssuming the integrity of the investor I’d be looking for much larger investment than 1.5 million to give up controlling interest. 

Its everything else he may bring with his team of people and contacts.  He will have far superior media execs, sponsor opportunities etc etc which can only be a good thing as well as putting us in the window.

The only person ive seen touting the 1.5mil idea is Steelboy who im actually thinking is just a troll looking for reactions as he seems unhinged at any idea of Motherwell trying something a little different.  I get the feeling he sits in a rage when we win 😜

[Mccus28]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

That's not the case. It was a light hearted comment about Taylor Swift. 

Try not to engage with this guy, he is turning into a parody of a Motherwell fan

[Motherwellfc1991]

Thanks for info on the various board members. 
 

Is it just me or is there potentially quite a bit of conflict of interest with two board members being on the exec board and the well society board. 
 

I may be wrong in thinking the well society are the majority share holder essentially so if the society decide to question the board on a decision or way of thinking then Dickie and Feely are basically questioning themselves ? 
 

The same goes the other way around and they are both for this investment and attempting to persuade the society board and its members.

I did way back recall wishing the society to question/raise  a few decisions of the board in relation  to financial operational  decisions mainly stadium and society fund  shortfall related and it never made its way past the society because Alan Burrows and One other society and board member at the time didn’t want to be seen to be questioning themselves as they sat on both boards 

[joewarkfanclub]

£1.5m for a controlling share of the club values us at £3m.

Given that Lennon Miller is worth that on his own, Im not sure how seriously I would be taking those figures.

[Dossertillidie2]

18 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Thanks for info on the various board members. 
 

Is it just me or is there potentially quite a bit of conflict of interest with two board members being on the exec board and the well society board. 
 

I may be wrong in thinking the well society are the majority share holder essentially so if the society decide to question the board on a decision or way of thinking then Dickie and Feely are basically questioning themselves ? 
 

The same goes the other way around and they are both for this investment and attempting to persuade the society board and its members.

I did way back recall wishing the society to question/raise  a few decisions of the board in relation  to financial operational  decisions mainly stadium and society fund  shortfall related and it never made its way past the society because Alan Burrows and One other society and board member at the time didn’t want to be seen to be questioning themselves as they sat on both boards 

Was thinking the same but are these two not just the society reps on the board for decision making? Would perhaps make more sense to have a couple of non execs/external board appointments to give an impartial view on the main board

[Stuwell2]

24 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Thanks for info on the various board members. 
 

Is it just me or is there potentially quite a bit of conflict of interest with two board members being on the exec board and the well society board. 
 

My understanding of it is that the WS board elect two members to be on the exec board to protect the interests of the WS so there will always be two members who are on both boards. 
Understand your concerns regarding potential conflicts of interests if they are also private shareholders but as the society needs to put any proposal to the members and they will have the final say then if - and it’s a big if (more like bullshit) - that they are out to line their own pockets, then no matter how it was dressed up, I’d hope that there are enough society members smart enough to tell them to GTF. 
 

Edit: I’d also point out that these people are only two of the society’s board and for anyone to believe that some sort of a shady deal is being done and will be presented to members by the board as a good deal and asked to accept it, then there would have to be more that those two in on it which I personally believe is, like the rest of this theory, a crock o shit. 

[Cameron_Mcd]

27 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

Thanks for info on the various board members. 
 

Is it just me or is there potentially quite a bit of conflict of interest with two board members being on the exec board and the well society board. 
 

I may be wrong in thinking the well society are the majority share holder essentially so if the society decide to question the board on a decision or way of thinking then Dickie and Feely are basically questioning themselves ? 
 

The same goes the other way around and they are both for this investment and attempting to persuade the society board and its members.

I did way back recall wishing the society to question/raise  a few decisions of the board in relation  to financial operational  decisions mainly stadium and society fund  shortfall related and it never made its way past the society because Alan Burrows and One other society and board member at the time didn’t want to be seen to be questioning themselves as they sat on both boards 

They're their to represent the Society and protect it's interests 

[wunderwell]

I'm afraid that the WS has a bowling club mentality. 

I once invested in a bowling club so I'm certain I know what a bowling club mentality is like.

[santheman]

10 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

I'm afraid that the WS has a bowling club mentality. 

I once invested in a bowling club so I'm certain I know what a bowling club mentality is like.

They might have had in the past and rightly so but with the election of the new WS board members, what I know of them and what I've heard so far convinces me that we've now got good people on board and they have finally got their act together. One of the board members Jay has posted several insights on P&B to what has been happening behind the scenes so well worth a look. They're actual facts straight  from the horses mouth and not some of the pish being spouted on here by a certain person.

All the rumours and conspiracy theories being banded about on here are just that, and NOTHING will happen without the agreement of the WS members who will all be privy to what final offer (if any) is on the table before being asked to vote on whether to accept it or not.

I doubt anything that doesn't guarantee the WS retaining 51% would succeed unless it was something absolutely spectacular akin to a Euromillions win.

I for one would laugh the "rumoured" 1.5m offer for 51% out of the park and so would anyone else in their right mind.

[Big Wispy Flossy]

I think most if not all would be on board with well society remaining with 51% plus with additional investment.

the numbers being banded about don’t seem credible to me.

In the unlikely event that they are, then

1) it should be rejected, and

2) someone’s arse should be grass for leaking the info at this stage in the process

 

[weeyin]

26 minutes ago, santheman said:

I doubt anything that doesn't guarantee the WS retaining 51% would succeed

I thought that too, but the last vote showed the members were very much of the the opposite view indicating they would be willing to give up an overall majority; and by quite some margin.

[wellgirl]

5 minutes ago, Big Wispy Flossy said:

I think most if not all would be on board with well society remaining with 51% plus with additional investment.

the numbers being banded about don’t seem credible to me.

In the unlikely event that they are, then

1) it should be rejected, and

2) someone’s arse should be grass for leaking the info at this stage in the process

 

It's someone on the boards relative who has long standing connections with the club who is tweeting exactly the same things as steelboy is posting. That's the source yes? 

I am hugely unhappy that some people seem to have inside knowledge and the rest of us don't. Particularly as it seems that narrative is being used to try and persuade fans to say no to outside investment. 

[santheman]

2 minutes ago, weeyin said:

I thought that too, but the last vote showed the members were very much of the the opposite view indicating they would be willing to give up an overall majority; and by quite some margin.

Nope

They voted in principle to listen to what the investor had to offer and not reject anything out of hand. The vote wasn't to give up the majority shareholding.

 

[Casagolda]

4 hours ago, bobbybingo said:

Ok. Can you quote the bit where anyone says anything about selling them majority shareholding, or is that just your personal take on what he meant?

He clearly had the intent on having an investor take a majority shareholding otherwise there would have been no straw poll of Well Society members to ask that very question.

It is frog in the boiling pot trick.

1 hour ago, weeyin said:

I thought that too, but the last vote showed the members were very much of the the opposite view indicating they would be willing to give up an overall majority; and by quite some margin.

Like this. That is not what the poll asked. But now people think the Well Society has already shown that it is putting it majority share of the club up for sale.

[Villageman]

4 hours ago, weeyin said:

I thought that too, but the last vote showed the members were very much of the the opposite view indicating they would be willing to give up an overall majority; and by quite some margin.

That's probably making things overly simple. As I have posted previously in my opinion we could have a much more complicated scenario. At time of vote it was said we had 3800 members. After the vote it was divulged that only 1500 were currently supporting he WS financially. My argument would be whether the "missing" 2300 or part thereof would care what percentage the WS owned. Bluntly if I contribute for say 8 years I would likely vote a certain way, on the other hand if I had not contributed for the same period how would I vote or even bother to vote. 

When the vote to accept or decline investment comes this anomaly as I see it has to be resolved.