StAndrew7

Also, scream this from the fucking rooftops: "We are not desperate for money, we are financially stable," he said. "We have enough money to see us through this season, next and maybe a bit the next."

Agreed @wellfan. It's the kind of document that will sway a number of people into voting for his investment, I'm absolutely sure. It's also got more (financial, anyway) details than the Society's proposal, because this is his business plan. As far as I'm aware, the Society has one too, with the figures, KPIs etc. to back up their plan; I assume this will be coming out on Monday alongside the voting information etc. I said this on P&B and it's held true throughout the entire process: 1) Am I quite interested in some of what he's proposing? Yes, I am (with some obvious caveats, which we've done to death). 2) Do I want to give de-facto control of my Club to him, based on his proposal? No, no I do not. Also, just another thing to note: he wants £100k from naming rights to the stadium per season from year 2, but needs 75% of the shareholders to vote it through within the first 6-years based on the HoT. What if it doesn't go through? (Although let's be honest; if his proposal does go through, the renaming will go through) Edit: Also, I have absolutely no wish to be part of the "I told you so" brigade in 2/4/6 years time, but if this goes through and the Club is left in a mess, who will be left to pick up the pieces? The Society will implode (although there's someone on P&B saying they'd increase their input to it if this goes through, which is probably an outlier) and more or less cease to be the presence it is. The newly appointed Board will no doubt bend to Erik's will, reduce its loan as an equivalent investment when it can't meet its obligations (excellent work on that btw @David) and as a result the security of the stadium/land will go... then what? This might seem petty, but the people who vote this through will flip like a coin and look to those who opposed this all for the solutions when it goes tits up... If I'm wrong in all of this, I will absolutely hold up my hands and admit that I was. Will those that voted for it, if/when this all goes wrong? So we start again, and save the Club, again. We'll become the next Clyde/Airdrie/whatever and that'll be that. All because someone stood up and said "NETFLIX! DOCUMENTARY! SNAPCHAT!"

Erik's vision is here. I've not had a look through other than a quick skim read, so won't be commenting just yet.

Why not? If it's done using an online portal and people can do both at the same time, which then calculates the Society vote split and so on it should be the same timescale. The results are then totalled and communicated to the Club and Society. I'm not sure you can have things running in a staggered way; everyone involved in the voting process needs to get the same information at the same time, otherwise, I imagine there will be all kinds of legal ramifications due to people having access, others not, and then potentially exerting undue influence. I'm sure this will all be cleared up by the communications from the Club/Civica in due course.

Every shareholder is entitled to vote legally. The WS vote is for its members to instruct its Board how they wish them to vote on their behalf; yes or no. Individual shareholders get to vote yes or no. So if you're a shareholder and a WS member, you get two votes; one in each. I get that it doesn't make sense percentages wise but it does legally and morally. I want my vote to get this in the fucking sea to be heard.

I was always under the impression both votes were happening at the same time and WS members and shareholders are voting at the same time. Perhaps I've totally misunderstood all of this! I thought the proposal from the Exec Board was to be put the Society and shareholders? Edit: shareholders are voting at the same time, which means the information coming out on Monday is the formal offer.

Ah. I've not had that e-mail; I assume because I only joined the WS on the 11th, so can't vote... so I'm expecting the Club to provide me with the same information at some point.

Asked this over on P&B, too; has anyone been spoken to or contacted by the Club to confirm how they wish to vote (as in the method; postal/electronic etc.)? I've not had a peep as a shareholder thus far.

We continue as we are, raising the money we already do and using player sales, league performance and other income to keep us sustainable. The club is in absolutely no immediate financial danger. The Chairman has said as much publicly. Under the Exec Board's proposal, the safety net of the WS will diminish to practically zero over the course, even with its contributing membership remaining as it is (which it won't). So that the begs the (so far unanswered) question; under Barmack's stewardship, who provides the safety net for the magical £750k funding gap in the doomsday scenario we keep hearing about?

I didn't personally but Vietnam91 has posted his summary on P&B. Apparently Tom Feely was there and fielded a fair few questions.

I had a quick skim of the articles of association for the club; there's nothing specific that I can see there (it mainly relates to the role of directors, share sales and purchases etc.) but based on corporate law, any shareholder can call for an EGM at any point; but I think a majority have to agree, so it's not happening without the Society's approval/involvement in it. I do think that will happen, but there's a manner and approach to that which I think needs to be taken. I've said in a few other places that I think the WS Board have really behaved impeccably throughout this; the Exec Board are showing themselves up to be the ones with the immature/flippant attitude, or downright disregard for anything that isn't what they're proposing. There's very much a "hoist by their own petard" feeling to all of this right now; they're doing a good enough job of fucking this up themselves... so let them keep doing it. The reaction on Twitter to the latest statement, for example, is entirely negative from what I've read so far. I'm sure an EGM will follow if it's required; but until it's absolutely necessary, I don't see how the Society can win from calling one right now.

I'm not sure effectively declaring outright civil war between the Society and the Club higher-ups is the prudent thing to do in the current circumstances... perhaps in a few weeks, though, if the vote falls and McMahon is still in place.

He'll leave with a legacy that's deserving of his attitude towards anyone he sees as intellectually inferior to himself and his inability to do anything of note, other than publish a shite novel and use the Club to promote it. He had a real opportunity to unite the fan base behind fan ownership and to develop the Club into a proper community asset and has been found wanting, along with several of his pals who have supported him throughout.

Aye. It's basically them saying "we've already thought of this, ner ner ner". I'm sure they are; some of it is business as usual stuff to an extent (season tickets renewals/promotions etc.) but it reads so high and fucking mighty. If they'd "already been doing some of this" we wouldn't be in the fucking mess we're in, you bunch of fucking charlatans.

Well, they've read it, everyone.

I think there's a fair few posters on here and there who already are. I would expect quite a few to go along tonight if they're able to as well and have a discussion with the Board to try and develop ideas/understand them better.

I wouldn't say you are, no. I think there's also a willful ignorance from some as to what happens if/when the Society can't keep up its mutual investment in the Club. I'm also hoping/expecting the Business Plan which the WS will be releasing in support of their proposal to cover this kind of thing off; so the key performance metrics, investment plans/returns for investors etc. will detail what targets the're proposing to have and how they're going to look at meeting them.

How else do you suggest a return on investment is provided, then? Returns on investment in any business are provided from, basically, three things (I'm being somewhat flippant here): 1) Profit related payments 2) Something being provided for free there would normally be a cost associated with 3) Receiving a percentage of the sale of an asset you helped develop or were involved with, or the related IP which you can then exploit for your own gain. What else are we meant to do when someone invests and wants their investment back or to make a profit on it, provided it's all worked out?

On top of @weeyin's examples, I'd suggest keeping an eye out for the Business Plan that's going to be released soon. I think it'll help answer these questions, alongside what @David has already said.

No, it's not the same. What @David said.

Yeah, I'm in the same situation as you; I'm living well outside the local area now and will be moving even further away, eventually. I think the key thing is that we all still feel connected to the club, no matter the geographical constraints. I'm sure more will come for those of us who are outside of the Lanarkshire area. I personally wouldn't read too much into the Fir Park stuff, other than it's our home, it's an emotional attraction for us all and we all have tremendous (and terrible) memories there.

On this; some of them are pretty clear, I thought? They're proposing increasing season ticket sales by targeting specific markets, towns and building a local Society presence in them, re-engaging with non-contributing members in their ranks to up their ability to raise funds annually (and increase the security of the Club as a result) and explore strategic investment opportunities.

That's it in a nutshell. No matter how it's phrased or framed, we're voting for or against Barmack next week. Yes, the Society will then get to progress its plan; but we can ALL be involved in that as fans and WS members and have our say in it, which is one of the key messages of their proposal.

Fair; I do think that will come over the next few days based on what's been said on here, but I'm not privvy to the details/comms plan. One thing I will say, is that the plan does gives potential increases for rejuvenating the membership numbers from dormant members into regular contributors, season ticket sales along with target areas/towns and markets and the support/growth of the women's team. So there's some detail provided there. It's also got a timeline for how the investments will progress if EB's scheme doesn't go through; so again, dates and key deliverables are there. It definitely feels like there is more to come; with the session on Wednesday and the ongoing comms in the press etc. I would hope you (and we all) get the details that we're wanting. I am feeling far, far more positive about it all now though. I hope people can see just how much has gone into this plan, all the while dealing with the investment stuff; remember this was always something the Society was planning on doing, it's had to be sped up because of the circumstances.

I think @David has already covered this off a bit; this is a proposal, it's not a formal business plan. There's KPIs and ROI projections in the background which form part of the Business Plan side and will be discussed/released in due course I think. There's a danger with things like this that you overwhelm with too much information and a drip feed/progressive release of things often helps get messages across more efficiently. I understand you're not feeling it and that's fair but I do think there's more in this than anything Barmack has proposed on Twitter/P&B or in any of the lengthy statements released by the Club/Exec Board.