dennyc

My understanding of the answers to a few of those questions. Anyone know any different please correct. I am not close to anyone on either the old or new Society Board so my comments are based on responses to E-Mails and from having joined the Society at the outset and attended several presentations. Apologies if the response is lengthy but the questions are worthy of a detailed reply. 1. Around £2m total provided to date of which £850k was by way of Loan. Originally all funding was to be Loan only (secured by a Standard Security over Fir Park) but that model was changed at the request of the Club Board supported by certain Members of the then Society Board. I believe around £1.2m of that £2m was passed across never to be returned. Les Hutchison was integral to the 'donation' as opposed to the 'loaning' of monies. Part of his Agreement which drained Society monies. Jim McMahon chose to continue a similar funding model, again supported by some Society Board Members. Barmack wishes to do the same. No doubt someone can confirm the average annual income of the Society. Multiply that by the number of years the Society has existed and you will see why I am talking in millions rather than thousands. Another simple measure is to confirm how much in totql the Society has collected over the years and compare that to the total of current Bank Balance and outstanding Loan. Less expenses, they should match but I guarantee there is a sizeable shortfall. Donations made over the years. The reasoning for Loans only and a Charge over Fir Park was that if the Club were to collapse, all monies due to the Society were protected and would receive repayment priority upon a Club Administration or Liquidation. Those repaid loans providing a basis for the formation of a new Club. Starting over if you like. Worst case scenario but a valid consideration. There was no real intention for the Loans to be repaid, so as not to affect Club cash flow. Plus the Security over Fir Park offered other protections of the major Club asset. 2/5. Funds were originally to be moved across to cover short term funding gaps covering a range of expenditure relating to core Club activities and Community engagement. Society funds were not to be regarded as a piggy bank to be raided on a regular basis. In that way Society funds would gradually build up to a sizeable reserve. Millions was the hope.. In more recent times the Club forwarded a funding request to the Society and the Society Board would assess and decide whether to provide the funds. But not always on a Loan basis for some reason. When I asked for what purposes those funds were provided I was told "Projects". Pretty vague to be honest. Members were not asked for their agreement to the change in the manner funds were provided. When changes to the Society Board took place last year, driven by the new Appointees, it was decided that the Society should return as close as possible to the original funding concept. To build up Society assets. Also far more scrutiny was made of funding requests from the Club, and not all were passed as a matter of course. That does not appear to have been received well at Exec Board level and two Society Board members who seemed more aligned to the Exec Board have stood down, those Members having supported the Wild Sheep proposal against the majority view of the Society Board. My personal view based on responses I have had over the years is that a complacent Exec Board, under it's two most recent Chairmen, sidelined the Society and treated Society monies as the Club's own. To be utilised for whatever purpose and whenever they decided. Supported by some but not all Society Board members. Basically, It was easier to turn to the Society for finance as opposed to seeking solutions elsewhere or addressing inefficiencies within the Club. The new Society Board have addressed that situation, seeking to be respected as majority share holders and exercising more control over the monies provided by Society members. The Barmack proposal will utilise all Society funds over time and eventually lead to the Loan being repaid/written off. Almost certainly leaving the Society with no assets. Oh and with a much reduced shareholding and with little power in the Exec Boardroom. With no Loan in existence, the Security over Fir Park could be cancelled leaving Fir Park free to be used by a Barmack led Board as Security for outside Loans to fund his various projects. There is a recognised funding shortfall in his latest plan. Why is that? As I said, my take on things. Folk closer to the situation please confirm or disprove my understanding.

Out of curiosity how many Ordinary Shares to Messrs Dickie and McMahon currently hold? Enough to make a difference if transferred? I understand Companies have to provide an up to date list of Shareholders to Companies House every three years or so as a minimum. Last return I found listed for Motherwell FC was dated 2015. They also provided details in earlier years but I could find nothing after 2015? Maybe Shareholder details are reported differently nowadays? In the 2015 return William Dickie (Father of Douglas?) was recorded as holding 10,000 Ord Shares so possibly they will still held by his family/son. If so, I think they represent around 3% of the total Shares currently on issue. So significant I suggest. And they could carry the option to purchase additional shares under the Barmack proposal. Les H was also on the list at that time but no doubt he will not be listed on any up to date Register. Also listed in 2015 are a Douglas Dickie and a James McMahon but with only 12 and 10 shares respectively. Up to date details might be revealing. From the names listed, I think there are a good few who contribute here and on P&B. Anybody who wants a read type " Motherwell Football Register of Shareholders" in Google and click on the top item. Some other documents in there and on associated pages were a tad more interesting than the Euros. The early game anyway. Page 3 for the last shareholder return I could see.

Well done to all involved in the creation of a structured, comprehensive and credible plan outlining the vast potential of our Club and Community. This document needs to land on the doorstep of every Business and dwelling in Lanarkshire (impractical I know but we all need to spread the word in any way we can) As a byproduct it certainly points to how complacent the current Executive Board have become over the years. And great to see Grimmy has not lost touch.

I believe the Boards should work in Partnership, with the Exec Board responsible for the day to day running of the Club. They are the Professionals and, in some cases, employed for that purpose. CEO as a prime example. Sadly there has been little evidence of any Partnership in recent times. So yes, but only to a degree, the 'hands off' arrangement you outline. But far from passive which I acknowledge is your concern. The Society should and must be involved in strategic planning, driving aspects of it and so recognising their status as majority shareholders. But the existence of the Society should not absolve the Exec Board from strategic responsibility. Or preclude them from having input as their experience and knowledge could be of great value. Working together I would hope they could come up with a far better long term proposal than we have before us at present. And one less frantically cobbled together. As I say, a Partnership which appreciates and respects both elements, and welcomes input from both. The exact opposite of the relationship which has evolved under the current Club chairman.

So three wins and two draws as a minimum then.

And no midweek trip to Dingwall or Aberdeen over the festive period! Clearly there will have to be an investigation leading to a re draw. Maybe VAR will intervene..

I would like to see any agreement, whether with Barmack or someone else, state that Fir Park may not in any circumstances be used to secure external funding and that only the WS may provide funds based on a pledge involving our Stadium. If that is legally possible would need to be checked out as it might not be, or may be worked around. The best safeguard may be to ensure that a sizeable Loan remains in place under current terms as registered at Companies House. We do not need it repaid. Folk can maybe see why I am so suspicious of the requirement to reduce the outstanding Loan. What next? An offer by the new Barmack controlled Board to repay any outstanding balance, perhaps to enable the WS to meet it's agreement to match his financial input. In effect, we hand the money straight back leaving the coffers empty and with no monies owed to the Society. Hopefully the independent legal advice the Society is seeking will clarify the implications of having no monies owed to the Society by MFC. Edited to add. There is a world of difference between ' no ground can be sold' and using that ground to secure a Loan. I agree with 'weeyin'. These folk are clever and any words they use are carefully chosen.

If the Loan is repaid in full, or entirely written off, would the WS retain the power their Charge held over Fir Park provides? The record at Companies House states the Charge is in place due to monies owed to the Society by MFC. If no loan exists.....? The Charge was put in place following suggestions from the fan base in an attempt to protect Fir Park. in 2016 from memory, registered by A Burrows. My understanding is that, as first charge holders, the WS has to agree to any outside funding being secured by a further mortgage over Fir Park. If our Charge is discharged does that free up a Board under Barmack's control to secure funding using Fir Park as Security? That position needs investigated, but has hardly been mentioned.

The cynic in me thinks that in trying to achieve that goal it is also the intent to access whatever monies the Society has amassed from fans. Raid the piggy bank one last time. Reasoning 1. Insist the Society agrees to just about match the Wild Sheep funding over a number of years. An annual commitment well in excess of current annual subscriptions. End result? A reducing bank balance and eventually insufficient funds to meet commitment and/or effect a buy out.. What then? 2. Insist the Society agrees to write of a huge amount of monies owed to it by MFC. On the face of it an act of good faith by WS to improve the MFC Balance Sheet. In reality, a stripping of Society assets. Funds gone forever. It is really so obvious.

You may have a point regards how some people regard the Society and fan ownership. But that is hardly the issue here. To focus on the Society at this time deflects greatly from the real issue. In fact that deflection is exactly what the sponsor of this proposal has orchestrated. The only issue that needs focusing on immediately is that the Exec Board (fronted by a Chairman desperate to retire) has put forward a proposal lacking content which will immediately yield control of the Club to a minority Shareholder. Although in time that minority will almost certainly become a majority and lead to the demise of the Well Society. As for the three members of the Society Board who supported the proposal, I think it is telling that not one has gone on record, despite numerous requests, to outline why they came to that decision. Exactly what benefits they thought Mr Barmack would bring to the Club, and by association the fan base/Society. Why is that? If they have valid reasons, help me to understand. I am big enough to accept I may be missing something . In contrast to the other six Board Members, who released a statement explaining exactly why they voted against the plan and detailed the threat they believed it presented. Historically, the Society began well and grew at a reasonable rate, in line with the hopes of those that fought to bring it into being, and for the purpose it was created. Not perfect by all means but then what new Organisation is? Sadly over time, through several Club Board changes and aided by influences within the Society Board itself, the Society became more and more sidelined and it's manner of operation changed dramatically and secretly. And not to the benefit of Society or fans. Recent changes to that Society Board brought about a re-examination of the purpose and operation of the Society. That brought about increased resistance from the Club Board. A tightening and closer scrutiny of funds being passed to the Club plus a desire to be respected as the major shareholder being prime causes of that friction. Ironically, the exact factors many detractors of the Society, including myself, wanted addressed! And then, out of the blue, we are faced with this urgent need for outside finance, despite assurances only a couple of months ago from our Chairman that all was fine financially....no need for panic. And suddenly it is the responsibility of the long ignored Well Society to come up with an alternative should the Barmack proposal be rejected. A proposal they were shockingly not afforded the opportunity to be part of negotiating. Despite their status. Of course the Society needs to look at itself and seek improvement in several areas. Communication, Record keeping,Online presence being three that spring to mind. But progress has been made and without the influence of certain individuals I believe that improvement will continue and gather pace. But the issue before us right now is the Barmack proposal. That proposal is what we must not be distracted from looking at in detail. Despite Mr McMahon's best attempts

I find it really frustrating that some people don't see, or refuse to see, the obvious differences between the roles of the two Boards. The WS Board were established to grow Society Membership thus amassing funds for the use of the Club when required, to protect those funds, to work with the Club and also independently to promote Community involvement and awareness. As majority Shareholders they should also oversee the work of the Exec Board, working harmoniously in Partnership. The Exec Board exist to oversee ALL operations of the Football Club. Just as in every other Football Club. They have responsibility for all aspects of the day to day running of the Organisation, the financial wellbeing of the Club, safeguarding the future of the Club and working with various Authorities to ensure that all requirements are met. That is why the Club Board employ a CEO (of whom I have high hopes) and qualified Accountants in addition to a Football Manager and a coaching team. Working In Partnership with the Society Board who should be viewed as an asset and not a hindrance. Distinct responsibilities. Different roles. a partnership. Essential to enable both bodies to function effectively. And yet so many have been taken in by a strategy asserting that it is up to the Society Board, at the drop of a hat, to come up with a Business Plan detailing external investment plans for a Football Club currently under the Leadership of Jim McMahon and his Board. To essentially carry out perhaps the important role of that Club Board.....maintaining financial stability. And remember, our Chairman has placed no such pressure on Mr Barmack to present such a detailed or ambitious plan. Perhaps no surprise given that it is under his stewardship that we have seen such turmoil on and off the pitch for a good number of years. He has successfully created an atmosphere of fear and urgency, all to enable him to ride off into the sunset. And aided by one or two who have mysteriously appeared out of the blue on here and on P&B pushing the same corrosive agenda. As a direct result of that strategy, expectations of the WS Board have gone through the roof. Any Business Plan they are asked to produce should be focused on how they plan to grow the Society, leaving the Club Board to carry out the duties which they were elected to perform. If some of the Club Board are unable or unwilling to carry out those duties they should move on. I do believe securing fresh investment would be of great benefit to Motherwell Football Club. Of course it would. But I also believe that a forward thinking, dynamic Club Board under new leadership can secure such investment and address inefficiencies within the Club. Without bringing about the demise of the Well Society and all it stands for.

Same here. Another wee point the Chairman might like to clarify perhaps? Unless he is still in the huff. I'm pretty sure it is something the new regime, whoever that might be, will investigate in due course. In a drive to maximise income from all areas.

I also took it the Club benefited from all merchandise sales. But I read on P&B that Provan Sports are the real beneficiaries with MFC only earn anything if sales reach a certain level, a level which is pretty high and seldom reached. First I have heard of that arrangement but disappointing if true. I assume the Board worked out that it was cost effective to outsource rather than run our own operation. Or was it just the easy option? Might explain why we see a new shirt or three each season. Wonder how long that has been the case and how long is left on the contract? Oops. David beat me to it😀

Perhaps the Club and the Society forming a joint project team to look at future strip design could help build a better relationship between the two. Having discussed possibilities with manufacturers, present the final three options and let the folk who will be paying for the new shirt have the final say. Club, WS and fanbase uniting! Now, there's a novelty.

Cheers. We really need to get fans to vote, whichever way they go. Never heard mention of any threshold before. Just that it would be a majority wins. Goalposts move again.

Delaying the vote makes sense. But what is this voting threshold of 35%? is it Turnout? Who decided on that figure and why? More importantly what happens if the threshold is not met? Is the vote voided and the Club Board decision stands? What % voted last time out? A wee bit clarification please. Also glad to see a cut off date regards who may take part.

Excellent post. Positive, realistic and achievable. I think a strategy most on here could buy into. Essential for me is a proper, working, respectful relationship between the two Boards. When the WS was originally established, there was supposed to be a drive to attract Corporate Membership. Targeted at local Companies initially, but thereafter further afield. Perhaps providing matchday benefits to those Companies that signed up, working in partnership with the Club. Not sure where that initiative ended up or whether it was even taken forward? I like the idea of passing funds above a certain Balance to the Club, but would say it must be on an a soft loan basis only, secured by the existing Charge over Fir Park. Not that the Society would be looking for the Loan to be repaid under normal circumstances. Not a Donation though. Also the WS should be involved in deciding for what purpose those funds should be used. The requirement for funds to be provided on a Loan basis was originally built in to protect those monies. For future use by the Society should disaster befall the Club. That is the reason I am so against a portion of the existing Loan being written off. The write off would weaken the Society, now and in the future. The arrangement also provides protection for Fir Park. An excellent basis for ongoing discussion once this episode is over.

Yeah, what is the Board's Plan B if the WS members reject Barmack? I'm sure they must have one given the Chairman's comments about how investment is much needed. After all they are the professionals charged with safeguarding the Club.

McMahon's masterplan. 1. Declare State of Emergency. Heap pressure on the Society Board insisting they produce a strategy that is actually his Board's responsibility. Hint at continual decline if no action taken immediately. Deny Society access to vital financial information and enforce timescales. 2. Raise expectations amongst Society Members as to what the Society can realistically achieve. 3. Maintain silence , monitor unrest. Gloat. 4. Immediately prior to vote, declare that Barmack is the only viable show in town. 5. Ride off into the sunset having inflicted massive damage to the Well Society. Leave the Club in the hands of any investor he can convince to take on the challenge. Irrespective of whether or not a long term plan exists. 6. Sit back basking in the glowing Club Statement about his magnificent and modernist approach to Football Club leadership. And sadly he might pull it off.

Can we get big Sieb back for pre season? Make my day. I'm sure at approaching 60 he can still put the fear of god into strikers.....and a few of his own defenders.

Borrowed from P&B with Vietnam91's permission. I wanted to post it because I have an EMail from the Club Board received a few days ago advising that any income from the new/revised domestic deals cannot be taken into consideration when looking to the season ahead/valuations. Because those figures cannot be quantified. The Board really are playing a nasty game here. Operation Misinformation is alive and running The Uefa uplift is also public knowledge but it is the ignoring of 'Scottish' income uplift I find most insulting to us fans. Fuller details on Pie and Bovril for anybody who cares to have a look. Remember all the doom and gloom in the clubs detailed statement? Seemed not to mention any of the good stuff coming our way, like if we finish in 9th again we're looking at an £808k improvement. Quite an attractive prospect for an investor, especially when removing £434k of benign debt for a "clean" balance sheet is insisted upon. Overnight the league and Motherwell becomes more much more attractive. Nobody buy into any feigned surprise or ignorance to these facts. Here's the inconvenient numbers: SPFL League Sponsor changing from Cinch £1.6m per season to William Hill £2m per season, covered here: League Sponsor Announcement Sky Extension and uplift from £25m per season to £30m per season with an additional £4m options to cover more games, covered here: Sky Increase to £150m over 5 years Premier Sports announce 20 games per season for 8 figures (£10m?), covered here: Premier Sports 20 games per season So total prize pot rising based on press by 58% above this season (or 73% if the Sky option is taken up). Percentages defined here (2018 but still the same): Percentage breakdown for final league placing, all 4 divisions, 42 clubs UEFA Then throw into the mix that for the next three seasons (club says 2) due to our league winner getting automatic CL qualification a 80% uplift on the solidarity payments (min £650k per season). If the 2nd place team do it through the qualifiers then it is estimated to be over £1.1m, (this is behind a paywall, why there's no link):

Appreciated. At the end of the day we all want what is best for our football club.

Thanks for your response. I agree that the WS could learn lessons from the Hearts set up. Particularly with regard to a web site which is clearly a particular gripe of yours. No doubt there is other best practice to have a look at. So, yes, have a look at them for ideas. I also agree the Society could be and should have been more forceful given their standing as majority share holders. But where your comparison falls flat is the part played by the respective Club Boards. That is a massive factor. At Hearts, and whether folk like or loathe Anne Budge, we have a Board and former Board Members who respect their fan group, work with and support them for the benefit of both parties, and ultimately Hearts. I get the impression there is an open door policy whereby the fan group can call upon the expertise of the club when appropriate. And there will be differences of opinion at times, but I think that is natural and healthy. Also the Hearts executive have brought in literally millions to the Club via their contacts, business acumen and knowledge of the Club's fan base locally and worldwide. As recently as a month or so ago a couple of new initiatives were announced. £2m I seem to recall. Hearts appear to have learned lessons from the disaster that befell them and brought about the creation of the Hearts Foundation. Turning to Motherwell we have the exact opposite. We have a Board who resent the WS and certainly show them and their position as majority shareholders no respect. Plenty of examples of that with the discussions and negotiations surrounding this proposal from Barmack a classic example. A proposal that would ultimately bankrupt the Society and remove all power. The Society has been deliberately sidelined and ignored. Regarded simply as a Bank to be raided for whatever purpose the Club Board saw fit, aided by two or three Society Board Members whose loyalties and intentions are far from clear. Who come across as puppets of the Club Chairman. Through their influence the role of the Society diminished year on year until such time as the Society Board changed. At which point the worm turned, although not fast enough for some, fighting for your rights as a Motherwell fan and striving to return to what was originally established. It takes time although some progress has been made, otherwise we would not be having this debate. Regards sourcing external finance, exactly how much has the current Chairman and the Board brought in over recent years? Or ever. I would suggest the Society you hold in such poor regard has brought in far more through fans' subscriptions/donations alone. Not bad for a bunch of amateurs. Compare that to Hearts. Instead our Board have relied upon the Society to fund gaps and now Mr McMahon is attempting to sell the myth that it is the role of a bunch of volunteers to come up with a solution. As I said earlier, to do his job for him. And sadly some appear to have been fooled by his diversion strategy. So by all means compare the Well Society to the Foundation of Hearts. But please include the whole picture. It is not as simple as walking in and sacking the existing Club Board, even if the Society wanted to and has those powers.We need to retain some semblance of stability as the Club transitions to the new set up I believe you, me and most others are hoping for.

Does he not get immediate control in year one? After an his initial input of £300k.

Thanks for that. We are not really that far apart. If the WS take their rightful place, I see it as their role to appoint a club Board that has the the ability, willingness and drive to go out and seek external investment utilising their professional skills and contacts. Attributes that I do not see in the existing Board, bar perhaps the CEO whom I have high hopes for......... although that is a leap of faith to a degree. Thereafter the Society Board should be involved in negotiations to ensure that a united, realistic proposal is presented to the fan base. And it should all take the time it takes, in contrast to the ridiculous urgency and fear that has been introduced to the present proposal in an attempt to bluster it through. That is how it should work, but McMahon and Co would have us believe otherwise. Not any east task I guess, but I live in hope.