StAndrew7

Some of them (probably) will...

I think one point I'd add to the whole symbolic 50.1% thing, is that this is (as I understand it, anyway) entirely dependent on existing private shareholders not taking up the opportunity to purchase shares at any of the share issues over the next six years. So say, for example, I decide for the first three years not to increase my holding, but then decide to do it for the last three; this will do one, or a combination of several things: increase the amount of "investment" required from the WS, increase the amount of the outstanding loan to be converted into shares to get to 50.1%, or reduce the WS' overall shareholding. It is a legal right of existing shareholders to purchase additional shares at any issue. That doesn't mean they will, but if they do, it will cause all sorts of variations/changes/increases/alterations in holdings. I'm not clear on whether or not they can increase their holding, but they can certainly purchase shares to retain their existing level of holding. I believe there will be information on this in the proposals released as part of the voting information packs.

I think the Society, as a representative body of fans, should absolutely be involved in understanding the implications of sponsorship of the type that I've mentioned there; by a poll or whatever to help them share the views with the Exec Board and Club management. It's highly unlikely it will ever happen, but it's just an example I was citing as having happened in the last 2 or 3 months. It's not the job of the Society to attract/negotiate with sponsors and frankly it shouldn't be. I know, for example, that the whole Paddy Power unsponsoring thing was well received because it was something different, but I also know people who have serious issues with the amount of gambling advertising associated with the game, as well. I'm not saying there needs to be a Go or No Go decision from the WS, but depending on what the Club governance model ends up being, the WS may not have the casting vote on decisions such as those. However, in my view, should absolutely have input into them at the very least.

That's a fucking t-shirt. Awful.

Allegedly Newco. Burns poo-pooed it on Twitter and says from what he's heard it'll likely be France or Germany for the bold Thelonius.

Thanks! I'd give you a reaction but I'm all out for today. 😄

https://www.instagram.com/p/C8nGJ_BMcbU/?img_index=5 Last image, walking into the site with the rest of the team.

Aye, I think looking at raising money outside membership is critical; there's no reason we can't be speaking to local or international companies/firms etc. for £10/20/30/40k sponsorship deals a season for the club/investment into the WS or Club where they can bring specific pieces of information, skills or products to support us. I'm not convinced full time employees are the answer if we wish to retain the status quo from a WS perspective; there needs to be a clear line between the role of the WS and the role of the Exec Board/Club management. If we're asking the WS to do more of the work which the Exec Board is (supposed) to do like looking for investment, increased sponsorship, local partnerships etc., then I think we're moving into different territory in terms of roles and responsibilities, which would need to be explored. The WS should remain as it is for me, essentially raising rainy day money up to a certain point (let's for argument say that's the magic £750k number, or round it up to £1m); once it reaches that total, anything over and above that raised can then go to the club as additional funds or as a soft loan etc. to add to transfer funds, or to cover loan costs and so on. Also, there's no reason that the WS can't start to use its membership more; there's thousands of people there; many of whom will have very good business acumen/skills and experience in areas which can support the Society with its targets and mission. It doesn't necessarily take a full time team to achieve that, with the right people in the right places. I do think that some sort of overall Secretary/Executive type role would be beneficial, to keep things ticking over and monitoring progress; although the existing governance structure would point to that being the Chairperson(s) of the WS Board. I think there's been a bit of a mashing together of roles and responsibilities over the last few weeks/months and I think it's a narrative that's been driven forward by the Outgoing Chairman; the WS and its Board/Members aren't responsible for the day-to-day operations of the club and its ability to raise monies through investment, sponsorship or otherwise, nor should they be. The fact that the Exec Board didn't appoint a CEO for well over a year shows that the ball was very much dropped; the kind of leadership the Club could have had over the last 18-24 months with someone in place would have changed our current situation drastically; we can't ignore that. Although, for the record, I think that Brian Caldwell is the right man for the job; i can remember one or two of the previous shortlist not exactly inspiring confidence. It feels very much like a rewriting of the way the club has been allowed to drift unguided over the last 3 or 4 years (go and take a look at Vietnam91's latest post to see the kind of Outgoing Chairman we have). They should absolutely have input into that; for example, if a proposed sponsor or investor is an arms company, I doubt that would go down well (there was a recent case of that in Germany with Rheinmetall and Dortmund where it went through and the fans weren't happy). The structure has been to this point that the WS would be in the background with the Exec Board making the strategic decisions when required, with day to day run by the CEO and others. I think consistent top-6 and cup runs is definitely achievable and is actually well within our current means; we've shown that in the past. I think a lot of that is down to squad building and having relative stability at the club; we saw that with Robinson and McCall before him. On your last point, outside of X/Twitter (which, frankly, is to be expected, it's a vile place) I haven't seen much of the venom/belittling. I accept there's been a few testy replies on here and P&B (it's a very emotive subject, after all) but for the most part it feels like it's been done in good spirit.

Just to make a couple of points and ask some questions on this (also; by no means having a go here, just interested to hear your thoughts on what you've said!): - If a couple hundred people signed up to £10/month on average, that's an extra £24k a year. Add in others who pay in a bit more, you're probably anywhere from £25k-30k increase. That's good! - I would agree with this; they have stepped in and helped when they can but the "so far" thing is now seemingly down to being stifled by the Exec Board and others, I would argue. That means there's definitely scope for the Society to do more with a fully collaborative/bought in Exec Board and Club management structure. - What do you define as "progress" for Motherwell? Consistently mid-table/the odd cup run and foray into Europe? If it is that, we've done that over the last 10 years. Recently we've had two/three poor seasons, down to bad decisions made at the Exec Board level in terms of managerial appointments and not replacing the CEO properly for over a year. This is not the fault of the Society. - You've said the Society have done a decent job so far and no more, yet say you have little confidence in them; why? I assume you'd be willing to give them a chance to prove to you "wrong" as it were? - The divided fanbase is an interesting point; I definitely think there are "sides" in this whole debacle, which is exactly what you'd anticipate given such a polarising issue, however, that's always going to be the case. There will always be people dead set against it or for it; and they tend to be the most vocal. I would say that I was very much in the "I'm intrigued by this and interested to see what is proposed" camp before everything was published; having now considered it and everything that is continuing to come to light (check out Vietnam91's latest on P&B, it's particularly eye-opening about our Outgoing Chairman), it's absolutely not the right deal for the club. That doesn't mean there's not a "right" one out there and that it can't be found by a rejuvinated WS/Executive Board working together rather than at odds with each other.

Or to view it another way, we have a club and management team who understand how important family is and are happy to provide the opportunity for our players to support their family during an incredibly challenging and stressful time, whilst also getting to take a break?

Yeah, I realised that shortly after I posted 😅.

That's simply not true, though. There are plenty of examples; organisations (churches, presbyteries etc.) who run their own organisations with similar levels of cash in them, entirely (or almost entirely) run by volunteers. I accept that a lot of them have skills and experience from their professional lives they utilise here (e.g. the treasurer being an accountant), but it doesn't mean it can't be done. The church just down the road from the club (Motherwell South) is a perfect example; they have raised well over £1m (probably closer to £1.5m now) and paid for and built a new sanctuary and are about to pay to renovate the remainder of the buildings as well. That project has been run entirely by volunteers and bringing in professionals to do the relevant tasks like architectural drawings, building works etc. when the time has come. I would probably agree that more structure in terms of assigned roles is required on the WS Board, if it moves into a more prominent majority shareholder role (e.g. a treasurer with an accounting/banking background etc.) and I do think a paid/employed Society Secretary type position would make some sense. I'm not really up on my corporate law; would that mean the type of Company/Incorporation the Society is might need to change, so they can have employees? I would say that the Society would probably be best to continue in its role as an "at length" majority owner, but with better control over the Exec Board and its members, who make the decisions on the strategic direction and so on, with the more mundane/day to day side of business dealt with by the CEO and their team.

Not sure I'd do that immediately; a few St J fans have said they thought having the captaincy there affected his confidence/natural game. I would imagine McGinn will get promoted. Maybe next season if he settles well into life here.

You could argue Liam Kelly didn't play a single game last season, so swings and roundabouts. 🤣

I actually think we're probably OK on the striker front even if Bair does go; Robinson, Moses and Stuparevic vying for what's effectively one spot (although I can see the latter playing as a 10, akin to Vale) should be OK, although a bad injury and I'd agree we might be in a spot of bother but do have Ferrie, too. Priority is absolutely the LWB and GK slots, now. Maybe a few Terrance Rialists during the pre-season tour. Was it @steelboy who mentioned Randolph is out of contract?

Apparently he took a lot of the flack from the St J fans for last year's poor performances; captain, local lad, winner of two cups etc. A fresh start with an adoring, forgiving fanbase is just what he needs... 👀

Happy with that one; 6' 3" and all we really need to ask of him is to win headers and get the ball to fuck so that's perfect. Essentially the Bevis role without the added Bevis shenanigans. St J fan on P&B says he played his best football centrally in a 3, so that's ideal. Next; a keeper, LWB x2 (one of those will probably be a loan) and I'll be upgrading from pleased to very pleased with out business. Also, at this point last year, we'd only signed Obika (cc @capt_oats on P&B for that). Kudos to getting the business done early to Ketts / Dawes / Caldwell.

I've not seen anything to confirm that, he's down on the squad update as having been offered a new deal and negotiating, like you say.

Was about to say much of the same. Expecting a rejuvenated WS Board to come in and change anywhere from 5-10+ years of what appears to have been stagnation or potentially downright mismanagement under the watch of the previous incumbents, coupled with what seemingly had been a Yes sir/no sir/three bags full etc. relationship with the Chairman in less than a year isn't fair. As for the business plan being a result of the situation we're now in, that's not entirely accurate. My understanding is that it was already under development/in its initial stages before Christmas and has since picked up as significant a pace as it can with the time constraints the board have, based on the short notice of facto the original HoT being delivered to them. I agree some things can/could have been done quicker (the standalone website being a good example of that) but to write the board off before there's been any chance to present anything isn't fair, but as always, each to their own opinion etc. I think the Foundation of Hearts is the kind of structure in terms of comms, presence etc. is what we should be aiming for, personally. Its size and stature is unrealistic for us, purely based on the funds they have available to them from one or two individuals and the size of the Hearts fanbase. All this shows to me is just how broken our "fan ownership" model has become, as a result of the Les investment and subsequent sale changing the original plans and so on. There's a catalogue of errors and issues that go back much further than the current WS board.

Yes. £300k for three seats on the board and chairmanship with the casting vote.

The latter is definitely my understanding and I believe that of the Well Society board too, I think Derek posted similar on Twitter the other night.

More annoyance incoming...

Summary is as follows: - 6 different share issues every August for 6 years. - each issue will have a different number of shares issued and at a different price per share (the same price for everyone each year but at a different price each year) - calculation is fully re-worked by legal advisors at the moment (due to the changes) - was always the intention and remains that this calculation for each of the 6 years is fully detailed in the Heads of Terms to be released with the voting papers - current private/other shareholders would still have the opportunity to buy a number of the new shares based on their current shareholding at the time of each issue – this is a fundamental legal right that they hold. - if they did not wish to acquire any of the new shares within the first release, still able to participate in future releases. - basically will be asked 6 times what they would like to do and will make 6 separate decisions with full papers being released to them on each occasion. - should some of the current other shareholders decide not to purchase any further shares, then the Well Society will acquire those shares Also confirmed that both the Club and WS have engaged outside legal teams to advise on the deals independently.

Got a reply, it covers this off. Will post it in a bit.