New Investment Options

[Kmcalpin]

This is a critical issue, so its time for a new thread. 

The Society has just sent out an email containing a provisional vote. Have all members received it? 

[robsterwood]

26 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Yes and I've voted 

What was vote options?

[Mad Dog]

3 minutes ago, robsterwood said:

What was vote options?

Yes, I would consider a proposal that would see the WS lose its majority or no I wouldn't.

[robsterwood]

16 minutes ago, Mad Dog said:

Yes, I would consider a proposal that would see the WS lose its majority or no I wouldn't.

Thanks for that. Any idea on what majority will vote for?

[Kmcalpin]

11 minutes ago, robsterwood said:

Thanks for that. Any idea on what majority will vote for?

No idea. I'd prefer to go with the Society option but have voted to consider external options. I think it would be remiss to reject out of hand external options without knowing details. I do not want to influence anyone else though. Each to their own. 

[Clackscat]

Was a really well constructed and balanced communication.

Basically asking for views as to whether losing the majority shareholding is a red line you would not cross, or whether you would consider a proposal leading to that on its merits.

If negotiations commence and a final offer is put forward then members get to vote on that.

I understand totally the emotions involved but I think it wrong to dismiss something out of hand without knowing what it involves

 

[robsterwood]

Sounds exciting times if it can take us to next level. 

[grizzlyg]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

This is a critical issue, so its time for a new thread. 

The Society has just sent out an email containing a provisional vote. Have all members received it? 

Yup and voted 

[Mad Dog]

23 minutes ago, robsterwood said:

Thanks for that. Any idea on what majority will vote for?

No idea. It's not a yes or a no for me at this point but I would like more information on the potential offers so I said yes to consideration.

[Villageman]

12 minutes ago, Clackscat said:

Was a really well constructed and balanced communication.

Basically asking for views as to whether losing the majority shareholding is a red line you would not cross, or whether you would consider a proposal leading to that on its merits.

If negotiations commence and a final offer is put forward then members get to vote on that.

I understand totally the emotions involved but I think it wrong to dismiss something out of hand without knowing what it involves

 

Not sure I agree with your first sentence. The vote option is WS keeping or losing majority holding. That holding appears now to be 71%. WS would still retain slim majority at 51% so there is quite a negotiating option available if so desired.

[FirParkCornerExile]

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

This is a critical issue, so its time for a new thread. 

The Society has just sent out an email containing a provisional vote. Have all members received it? 

nope

[Mootherwell86]

FWIW I do believe that we should endeavour to have the Society keep its majority share. In my opinion it is the best way to safeguard the future of the club. 

However, in my opinion there are some changes needed within the club & society to changed the current direction of the club.

Firstly, Comms from both parties need to be massively improved. Poor standards of club comms has been well documented since Alan Burrows left the club. This was highlighted with Kettlewells contract extension announcement this week. Amateur wouldn’t even be the word for it. In terms of the society I think the most insightful and worthwhile communication from it has come on here and P&B from Jay and Dez. 

Secondly, the Club and Well Society seem to be pulling in different directions. Visions of both need to align in order for us to make any progress. Believe this can be seen with recent talk of ‘investment’. Why wasn’t the Well Society given more time to formulate a a long term development plan before *that video and talk of investment was put to fans? Now it’s come across that Club Board are keen for investment ASAP whilst the Society are still coming up with their plan.  Some joined up thinking would be good. 

Investment should be welcomed but only from the right parties. It must be ensured that the values of potential investors match those of the club and that they’re willing to work alongside the Well Society to protect the long term future of the club. It is absolutely imperative that a CEO is appointed ASAP so that we can begin to move forward on any front. 

Youth development and implementing effective player trading must be at the forefront of any long term strategies being proposed. Major changes needed in terms of recruitment process for us to start moving forward. Ideally before the Summer. If we can get the recruitment right and Sell a Lennon Miller or 2, we will be absolutely fine. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

No idea. I'd prefer to go with the Society option but have voted to consider external options. I think it would be remiss to reject out of hand external options without knowing details. I do not want to influence anyone else though. Each to their own. 

Exactly why dismiss out of hand without knowing the full details.

[texanwellfan]

3 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Exactly why dismiss out of hand without knowing the full details.

Indeed!  Why throw anything out. I’m sure there will be a chance or two further down the line to vote against any proposition put forward. 

[Kmcalpin]

55 minutes ago, Mootherwell86 said:

Secondly, the Club and Well Society seem to be pulling in different directions. Visions of both need to align in order for us to make any progress. Believe this can be seen with recent talk of ‘investment’. Why wasn’t the Well Society given more time to formulate a a long term development plan before *that video and talk of investment was put to fans? Now it’s come across that Club Board are keen for investment ASAP whilst the Society are still coming up with their plan.  Some joined up thinking would be good. 

I agree with most this. Despite owning the club, the Society seems to have taken a passive  back seat role. It should have been more proactive. Derek Weir and Jim McMahon  and perhaps others a year or two ago seem to be have been ploughing lone furrows. Credit to them for their service though. The Society ought to have been a bit quicker off the mark to draft up a proposal in principle. More joined up thinking required, as you say. 

On another tack, I'd like to hear a bit more about the other 3 or 4 external proposals which are not as far advanced as the 2 main ones. 

[robsterwood]

I think we should be ambitious. Speculate to achieve. Look at Wrexham. Others that have shown ambition. If we bring in better players and sells on we will thrive. We are u top league in Scotland. It can be publicised more. I would rather aim for higher and glory than exist as also ran.

[robsterwood]

No club would really die anyway if it goes wrong. Look at sevco. Airdrie. 

[fizoxy]

I don't mind being ambitious, but Wrexham is a one off, and there's mileage in their story because a relatively modest investment can lead to them moving up some divisions and thus generating more interest for the tv show.

The best we can do is finish 3rd and maybe win a cup, but there's a few clubs with budgets and fan bases that eclipse ours that can't even do that. Shit, we often finish above a couple of them.

The level of investment that is transformative enough to really make it interesting isn't going to happen, but I'd be open to someone putting enough in to help us become more sustainable and secure, and improve our academy and facilities.

The WS losing a controlling stake isn't a red line for me, but the kind of investment required to make me happy with that is probably out of reach.

[Jay]

8 hours ago, Clackscat said:

Was a really well constructed and balanced communication.

As I've just posted on P&B (so apologies to folk who peruse both and are getting a repeat), it's been encouraging to see some positive mentions of the actual consultation email content itself like this. I'm not sure if that's the widespread response but there's certainly been some favourable comments made. It might not seem like it, but a lot of collective work went into the content to try and ensure it was as balanced as possible and avoided anything that was too leading in either direction, so if that has been achieved, it's a good thing.

Although that said, one thing that maybe could have been clearer in hindsight going by some of the comments is that idea of the consultation being non-binding. It's to give the Well Society and club parameters within which to approach current, and any further, investment offers in terms of negotiations, while also clarifying if steps such as green lighting a CEO and beginning to rebuild & refresh the Executive Board can be undertaken, or whether those kinds of things need to remain on hold. 

However, I think it's worth highlighting that if the Hollywood A-Lister did indeed rock up at the Chapman Building carting wheelbarrows of cash and looking for majority shares, nobody would say "sorry Taylor hen, the Well Society voted in a non-binding consultation not to give up fan-ownership so you'll need to taxi it back to the airport". 😂

[Mad Dog]

7 hours ago, wellgirl said:

It was a yes or no vote no? No other options?

Not at the moment. It's simply gauging opinion on whether or not we would be open to the idea of outside investment which would result in The Well Society holding less than 50% of shares in MFC.

Do doubt there will be further options once a preferred bidder has been decided upon and more details of the investment can be made official.

[yosemite sam]

I don't know if I'm being a bit naive, but could there be situation where both parties have the same 50/50 ownership, and the invester could take out any profit/loss from his share of player sales etc, so he sees some kind of return for his investment, but we still have a say.in the running of the club?

[cambo97]

7 hours ago, robsterwood said:

No club would really die anyway if it goes wrong. Look at sevco. Airdrie. 

I'm sure the Third Lanark, Clydebank and Gretna fans would disagree.

[Spiderpig]

I'm not a WS member so I've no say in the consultation but it seems blatantly obvious to me that if the WS members don't agree with reducing their shareholding then there will be no investment. 

Potential investors don't want to be dealing with shareholders that continually need to poll their membership at every turn to ask their opinion. So for me unless the WS shareholding is below 50% then I can't see it happening in a form beneficial to the club long term.

[FirParkCornerExile]

17 minutes ago, cambo97 said:

I'm sure the Third Lanark, Clydebank and Gretna fans would disagree.

you are right, of course clubs have died, but the number of clubs that don't actually survive in some shape or form is minimal. I'm not suggesting we act recklessly but some of the hysteria about not having a majority share holding is frankly off the scale. We operated for over 100 years not being fan owned and not being fan owned does not mean we will automatically go bust or every owning group will be out to screw us over. Like all things in life the devil is in the detail. Indeed being fan owned does not mean we will never go bust or go into administration either.

 

Im in the "lets see the facts, the checks / balances / assurances and vision" before I decide Yes or No.

[wellsince75]

The challenge is we've not been profitable.  The model hoped we'd sell players and hoped we'd be able to have cup runs to make things meet. That's not happened. 

Crowds are reducing and unlikely to ever increase, other revenues from tv etc have not been forthcoming.  Our cost is 50:50 ratio on players v's other costs. 

Thinking from the eyes of an investor, if investing funds in a football club (even if I was a Well fan) I'd want control, I wouldn't want a well meaning society to have control the majority control.

I personally don't believe we're any better off with a society owned model than we had for the previous +100 years of existence.