Leaderboard

The thing is, we're not turning down £2 million investment. We'd be essentially turning down a £2 million offer for control of the club.

Why do we need year on year investment? The aim should be to run the club at a small profit to build reserves.

Would the Well Society's vision and strategic plan have been made available to fans/supporters if there hadn't been this speculation about an outside investment bid?

To counter that (and by no means is this intended as having a go at you): Firstly; are we going against a guy with a plan? Where are the details of his sources of funds for his planned investments (other than £330k/year), proposals for increasing revenue, the rates of return on his (and the Society's) ongoing injections of cash into the club? All I've seen on the official statement on the club website and from Barmack directly on P&B are buzzwords and corporate speak, with the odd bit of language around interest in a docu-series about the club. So I ask, genuinely; what plan have you seen that isn't high-level stuff? In my work we look at potential returns of investment very early in processes to prevent clients committing to anything that just doesn't make sense. Our outgoing chairman said at the AGM that we should have external financial experts doing the due diligence on this; has that been carried out and what was the outcome? To make a decision on whether or not this is suitable, we need details which we either haven't been given yet, or aren't available at all. If it's the former, I'd question why they've not been made available. If it's the latter, I'd question as to why this is even going ahead. Secondly, The Well Society WERE this for a long time, I absolutely agree; which is exactly why I didn't sign up to become a member until today. I made the decision because, frankly, the Society is going to need everyone to rally around it - even if the proposed investment goes through, otherwise it will cease to exist and our "great wee fan owned clubTM" won't be fan owned any more. A lot of the decisions made in the last 10 years since Les got involved have been to diminish the influence of the Society, I think that's abundantly clear; removal of the standalone website to a section buried on the Club's, lack of control on the Exec Board and, frankly, previous boards made up of yes men and women, who allowed the Society to essentially become a provider of soft loans to the club rather than being the majority shareholding body it was/is intended to be. The new board elected in October have been working incredibly hard on their plan, whilst also meeting for 3 or 4 hours at a time to discuss the investment, in their own time as volunteers. I think a 6-month turnaround on this may well be deemed by many as too slow, but the outside factors influencing it all can't be ignored. They have told us they have a vision and strategic plan and they have said they're going to launch it shortly (before the voting window, or at least to coincide with it starting): I think the time to judge the Society board on things like this is in 3 or 4 weeks, when their plan(s) have been published to the membership and wider supporters to better understand them.

Anyone who believes that there is an untapped revenue stream out there which only Erik Barmack knows about and it's is going to give only us a significant long term boost is a complete mug. We are growing our turnover year on year and the focus should always be on improving our core football business. That's where improvements need to be made, talking about AI and celebrities is smoke and mirrors to draw in easily impressed morons. The deal only offers short term protection so in 2030 we would be in a position where all the assets can be sold by Barmack and the Society will have given up it's entire bank balance and won't be able to offer any protection to the club. It would be utter madness to go down this path. We only need to look at the ways that Mike Ashley crippled Rangers by using his control over the club to sign them up to deals that were suicidal for them but very lucrative for companies controlled by him. This deal means could Barmack could put in a small amount of money and on day one sign us to expensive and long term Artificial Intelligence and marketing contracts. There are lots of ways to take money out a football club.

Folk really need to stop saying the Well Society is not fit for purpose. The Well Society previously was not fit for purpose because it was set up that way by the incumbents on the club board to get the benefit of of the money raised but without the interference that would come with true fan ownership. The fact that Society Members have had the temerity to vote individuals onto the Society Board who might actually want to change that and have a real say in the running of our club appears to have brought a lot of this to a head. Its clear from detail given that McMahon has been pushing this deal and that Barmack doesnt want to be inconvenienced by a rejuvenated Well Society trying to influence any decision making. He appears to have been assisted by Dickie and Feely in this regard which is a clear conflict of interest. How else can you explain a proposed deal with 1 side putting in £1.95m over 6 years and gaining 49% of the club whilst the other side puts in £1.75 over the same time period to lose 25% of its existing stake? Barmack also gets effective control of the club from day 1 for only £300k and an 8% stake due to his chairmanship and board appointees? The deal is ludicrous and should be chased. The new Well Society Board have only been in place since October. In that time they have done their due diligance on this and are putting together their own proposals to strengthen the club going forward. They are all all Motherwell fans with the best interests of the club at heart. They have a diversity of skill and experience. They deserve a chance to show they can can do better than the ones who got us to this point.

To be fair, achieving success in business doesn’t automatically make someone unpleasant. Much of reaching that level involves building relationships and being trustworthy and reliable enough that others want to work with them. There are always bad apples in every industry and at every level of business. However, the stereotype of the evil, ruthless multi-millionaire who seeks only to make a quick profit at others’ expense is just that—a stereotype.

I've been a member for six years and I don't pay that much in because I don't have lots of cash spare. I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the stuff I've seen lately on twitter. The well society board have every right not to want outside investment but some of them were on twitter telling people to vote no before details had been made public. Months ago. Fan ownership is great but the well society have been practically invisible for too long. That's my view. I basically think the well society have been too anonymous for too long and that's very likely not their fault if others at the club didn't back them - but it's not good either.

Looks a potentially really good signing but no doubt will be written off by some before even kicking a ball. Welcome to the Well Kofi Ps. With that first name I hope he didn't Costa fortune!!

The barmack bowl has a ring to it.

I swear to god I better see a goal coming direct from one of Balmers throw ins! Still think we need a big unit at the back with a wee bit height in him just a big meaty bastard lol. And at least the signing is good news after yesterday and this match day training kit disaster wonder wants in store tomorrow.

And certainly, as owners, direct the Club Board rather than be dictated to by that Board. Perhaps some good can come out of this whole affair at the end of the day.

Exactly - could start with the majority shareholders appointing the board and demanding they have the most seats on the board to cover the fans wishes. Those who wish to stop being volunteers and be paid for those duties can step up to the board. Then as is pointed out those mentioned can make a difference being on the board. Directors are paid to take the company forward and make decisions. Majority shareholders are not. It would be a good place for the Well Society to start.

The BBC are simply after clicks. Nothing more. They don't even get the players on our team's names right sometimes. The Well Society can create a plan that improves the workings of the Society itself, but even if it came up with the best plan to draw investment that the footballing world has ever seen, they're not ideally placed to enact that. It all comes down to the actual board of the club, and the CEO. Those individuals are being paid (or should be getting paid) to do that job. Not the people who give up their free time to help run the Well Society. As an aside, if I was on the board of the Well Society and we came up with the plan for investment and for taking the club forward, I'd be looking to be more involved in the implementation of that plan and the running of the club. It's easy to forget sometimes, but the club board is answerable to the Society. Not the other way around.

Which Barmack will get back when he cancels half the Well Society loan plus the £1.35m he is demanding they provide over the same period. The guy is effectively getting the club for nothing.

The WS are the majority shareholders, owners, controlling interest, etc so nothing major should happen at The club without them knowing about it and sanctioning it, ie additional investment proposals, so if the WS board in line with the memberships wishes don't fancy it then it should go no further. And the club board should be told go and try again However as the WS was never set up with any serious Intent in terms of getting professional people onboard. It's been left to the volunteers to deal with the club board who want out ASAP and clearly have no time for the WS. The WS has been nothing more than a piggy bank to the club since it was set up with members contributing significant sums of cash with no real benefits in return, it's fan ownership in name only. So as the current club board are desperate to get out , now maybe the time for the WS to step up, get their act together restructure and get some professional people in place to run the club going forward for real and effective fan ownership.

They didn't say alternative proposal. They said a new business plan for the society.

That's claret and yellow, sorry luminous yellow

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking. I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not inspire confidence of any cohesion and unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase.

Which is exactly why they're producing a strategic plan that moves away from that kind of shite, which is being used to tar the current board with what has come before them and "aye been done". Give them a chance.

Is it, though? As others have mentioned, is it really the responsibility of a group of volunteers to create an investment plan for a million-pound business? Doesn't some of the responsibility for that lie with the CEO of the company? You know, the person who's being well paid to do that job? Or even the Chairman? Or is it a case of fans sitting back and saying, "Well, the club and board have voted in favour of the current offer from Barmack. Now it's up to the Society volunteers to better it, or we go with the sub-standard first offer"? Here's an idea. Why not hold the board of the club and the new CEO accountable for doing their jobs? The fact that they proudly voted in favour of recommending the current offer is alarming, to say the least. Here's a question. If the Society somehow came up with a way to raise an extra few million pounds for the club, do we want the individuals who saw fit to recommend the current offer from Barmack being in charge of how that money is spent? Sorry, but for me, this isn't on the Society. This is on the board. If they honestly believe this offer is as good as it's going to get for a club like ours, then we really need to be asking questions about their suitability for the roles they're in.

They've basically said that's what is happening. And also, I think @dennyc and others are spot on. The Well Society hasn't failed as an organisation in any of this. If anything, the fact they're producing a plan which I would expect is going to be potentially a fair bit outside their remit, demonstrates they have they Club's best interests at their core. I would suggest that they've seen the threat of an inactive/ineffectual Executive Board and are acting on that just as much as in response to proposed investment. It's interesting that McMahon all of a sudden made investment his priority post the October Society elections, when a significant number of the old guard were voted out. He spoke about looking for investment and telling our story at length at 3 or 4 AGMs before the latest one. The lack of action until he was under threat from a rejuvenated WS is telling.

Fair point. I guess what we don't know is what attempts the existing MFC Board made in recent times to secure fresh investment. Be it through that emotional attachment you mention or through local Business people who are able and willing to support the community. Looking from afar, it just looks like the Board were happy to rely on the Society for support until such time as McMahon and others decided it was time to get out. Hence the video and what has unfolded since.

I don't think Budge has put much of her own money in. Most of it comes from a finance guy called James Anderson who has invested a hell of a lot more than Barmack is proposing and actually supports fan ownership. "Sitting near McKinlay at the top table during the AGM was Anderson, Hearts' principal benefactor and a non-executive director. Benefactors combined have donated more than £25m to the Edinburgh club since 2017, and Anderson is responsible for the greatest chunk of that. McKinlay divulged that there is a contract in place with the Edinburgh businessman going forward. "We have a contractual commitment from him. I can’t go into the details of that for obvious reasons," he remarked. "James is very much committed to the longer term of Hearts. I think he said in an interview recently that he wants to see stability. He does not want to see managers changing every six months, or every three months or whatever. We have seen that at some other clubs."

This is crucial for me. In my opinion, many people are mistakenly assuming that a potential investor seeking a 49% shareholding means the Society retains control. This is not necessarily the case. The key point for me is that the Society itself must retain a minimum of 51% control. Could we negotiate to reduce our holdings from the current 71%? Absolutely. There is room for negotiation with the right party, but our holding simply cannot fall below 51%. That is my firm boundary.

The Well Society are the actual owners there's nothing defacto about it.

Just when you thought this week couldn't get any worse. That's fuckin ganting.

I think that's fine as well, my issue is when people don't do their utmost to understand the consequences of the investment and what it could mean in the long-run. There are a lot of fans (on Facebook, the artist formerly known as twitter etc.) that are basically wanting investment at any cost. I don't believe that is a good position to have, frankly, and selling 49% of the club for a pittance isn't something which should be entertained. If others disagree with me, that's absolutely fine, but I will absolutely question why they believe that and expect solid reasoning in a response, outside of "BUT WE'RE MAKING LOSSES ALL THE TIME LOOK" which has been proven to be pure folly and also that reaction had the outgoing chairman back-peddling spectacularly after the video he released because it's simply not true. The club aren't in financial danger; so we can afford to be picky and reject deals that simply aren't value for money.

Hopefully there will be a few more in the door before then

Again to play devil's advocate we are going against the guy with a plan and favouring the Society who have no plans. It's all very well saying it's plain to see there are commercial deals we can do without Barmack but who is going to take us to them? We as the Well Society do not have a controlling interest in the boardroom. Start there. Put a plan to the supporters. Build a frigging website. The Well Society are hopeless bowling club personas leading us downhill towards the Championship. Solve that and then it is much simpler to tell an ambitious man trying to take us forward but at a pittance, that we do not need him (not his money).

Maybe some were working harder than others.

The resignations smack a bit of "I'll promise to represent the fans views... unless what they want is different from what I want personally, then I'm offski"

It will be interesting to see if Dickie and Downie are willing to come out and explain why they think Barmack's offer is beneficial for Society members.

Cannot agree with your understanding. He is committing to just less than£2m over 6 years. That is it financially. He also said he and his Organisation will make MFC a more widely known entity which should mean benefits. Nowhere does it say those benefits will end up in MFC pockets. My suspicious mind says they will not.

Based on the (limited) information on the club website, the Barmacks' letter says that they'd be looking to attract additional investment in the future and if they did, they'd then sell part of their shareholding to those parties; I imagine at a decent profit, if the plan has been a success. That would then, I guess (although I'm clutching a bit here without quite understanding it all) mean their shareholding is diluted, to the point where the WS/private fan shareholders hold a larger majority over the others. I don't know what that would do to the Chairmanship (I imagine it'd mean EB would have to relinquish his status, but perhaps not?) From what I can see, there's also nothing to stop him buying additional privately owned shares to increase his holding after the 6-years are up; that's what worries me (aside from this being an absolutely shite deal). If it's in the spirit of a German 51/49 model which he's said over on P&B (although some people have shown a lack of understanding of what that means; the 51 doesn't have to be a single entity), that should be prevented from happening in whatever articles are drawn up, if the WS ends up voting in favour. I just so happen to be off on holiday for the rest of this week after today, so I'm going to spend some time trying to come up with a fairly substantial list of questions to send to the e-mail address the club has provided. If anyone who's not in the WS or a shareholder wants to ask anything, ping me a DM and I'll try to include it.

Just appears to me that McMahon (and by association Dickie) are working very hard to sell the belief that it is up to the Society to secure external finance, when in fact that should be their responsibility as Club Board members. As for the WS as owners effecting change to the Club Board, I’m not sure there was a will to do that given the make up of the Society Board over the years. Plus you have to come up with competent alternatives. And your air fare to and fro would be prohibitive. 😀 Recent changes to the Society Board have ruffled a few feathers though…….allegedly. In some ways it is a shame this proposal has come in so soon after the Society Board changes as I was looking forward to seeing how things progressed under their leadership.

This is the argument I made to my mate earlier. The value of the investment doesn't come down to only money, but as you have said, the opertunity being offered which could potentially lead us to new money that as of yet lays in a pool untapped by Scottish football. You are not going to get many offers on the table that allow for the same protection offered here. It seems to me that Barmack has taken the time and effort to work along with fan demand as much as possible and likely more than a lot of others would offer. If you are just looking at the money on offer then sure, it looks a bad deal, but if you take the opertunity into consideration then I dont think its as clear cut as many on here think it is.

I hope so. But is it not up to the Club Board to secure funds from outside sources rather than being the responsibility of the Society Board? The Club Board run the Club and the Society Board amass funds from member contributions. From what I have read of the proposal, McMahon supported by Dickie doesn’t just want to hand over the keys to the castle, he wants to nullify the Society. And in the process acquire the Society’s assets for his preferred new owner and remove any control the Society has over the direction the football club takes. No wonder Dickie’s position on the Society Board is untenable. How long does anybody think the Society will survive under that arrangement? The Society was initially established to provide back up funds for a rainy day. Short term finance, to be repaid when suitable. Over time Les H and McMahon changed that role in that the Society now appears to be seen as a source of income. So much so that under this proposal the Society is forced to hand over a sizeable sum each year and at the same time have no real say in anything. Wow! I for one want to see the Society operate as originally agreed, with the Club Board accepting responsibility for ensuring the Football Club operates at a profit ( or at least breaks even) by operating efficiently and generating income from their own efforts. After all, that is what I understood the role of a Football Club Board was all about. And that is certainly not the role of the Society Board. So for me. Thanks but no thanks.

That's 9 months and counting. Any chance of a decent website that covers off firstly what the Well Society are all about. https://www.foundationofhearts.org/

I said earlier that if the Society lost control I would cancel my direct debit, because there is no way I want to line the pockets of a new investor either now or when they inevitably sell up. That would still be the case for me now.

As I said on here after the initial vote, there was no way I'd want to surrender control of the club to any investor. The derisory offer is exactly why. The details are pretty much the kind of undervalued nonsense I anticipated. If it had been the kind of offer that Brailsford made at Man U - 25% of the shares and some influence over the running of the club - I'd have been interested to hear more. And I still don't see an exit strategy. I think he's trying to emulate the Glasers and get control of a club at an undervalued price with minimal investment coming from his own pocket. Anyone who votes in favour of this would be voting for the destruction of the club; and I don't say that to be dramatic. It's a terrible offer.

No I simply don't think we should be handing over the club for £300,000 a year for the next 6 years.

Ah, the classic "I don't actually have a business plan, so I'll just throw out a modern-business word salad in the hopes that the plebs are blinded by mentions of "Netflix" and "Los Angeles-based" operator"

I don’t consider 2 million over 6 years as serious money but maybe that’s just me.

Thanks for that about Andy Weir: wasn't absolutely sure. Andy always looked so old and frail to me when I was a wee boy but i don't think he ever fully recovered from the meningitis he contracted after his head injury against Third Lanark.

Great - football stuff! Welcome to the club - I think now we can field a team that makes a little sense for game 1. Oxbourgh O’Donnell Casey Balmer McGinn Blaney Davor Miller Paton Nicholson Bair Halliday Tierney Ebiye X X X X