StAndrew7

We were all so young, so innocent back in May, so naive. 😅

Back to work today after a few days off, so will hopefully get to it later. Will also wait until the club update and see what's in there, too.

I have to admit, I did wonder about that being an issue when they were posted.

On your last point, I'm asking this as the Chairman said he'd recommend it at the AGM... No doubt him saying it then was with the idea that it would take longer and he'd have fucked off by the time it got to negotiate properly.

Yeah, I've been drafting an email for a while and this is in there, sending it shortly.

Preach!

That's essentially what I said, or was trying to say. They were giving their opinion based on their elected status, the Society membership voted for them to be their representatives. The membership then gave them their mandate; consider anything that involves investment in the club, including giving up the Society's majority share. The board said quite clearly thereafter that they would give their opinion on any offer and then put it to the vote. They are always open to hearing the views of their membership and I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been canvassing members they know and also receiving significant volumes of feedback directly. I believe the interview with Speedie and Derek said they'd be looking to host Society meetings to discuss things.

As with everything posted on a forum, a big pinch of salt is required to be taken when reading threads etc. Individual posters will clearly want to think they've played a part in it (and given the detailed feedback and discussions that have been had, I would suggest some have) but it's absolutely not just all about them.

No, we didn't. We had a situation this week where a number of supporters and the elected representatives of thousands of Motherwell fans said that via a public statement, in which they recommended their members reject it and provided their reasons for doing so. That's a very different thing. (Aside/general comment: that isn't the WS Board "telling" their members to vote no, it's them doing their jobs as board members and presenting their position to their membership with a recommendation that anyone can choose to take on board or not). I imagine EB will go back to the Exec Board, suggest new terms and renegotiate them with them. The club statement on Monday/early next week will no doubt cover that and how it impacts on the process, vote etc. If a new/revised deal is then tabled, I would anticipate/expect it going to both the Exec Board and WS for their consideration, yes. I asked him if his initial offer was his he all and end all and he said he didn't know,l and that he'd not really thought about it yet. I imagine he will have over the last few days, at least. He's seemingly open to revising certain things/negotiating but by how much, only time will tell I guess. Edit: the other thing to acknowledge here is that the WS is now down a member on the executive board, with the only one left having voted in favour of the first offer, so we can probably assume he won't truly represent the views of the WS Board in any negotiations. That's a proper minefield, right now.

I don't think that's quite what people are saying. The reason Barmack said he'll come back is the (quite vociferous in some cases) feedback and discussions he's received and had with posters there. That and the Society Board's statement on Monday. The conversation about the concerns re: the vote etc. came after he'd stated he'd come back with a revised offer/structure. He's also said that he's concerned it'll be a pyrrhic victory if he does win currently, as it will likely split the fan base; he doesn't want to win this at all costs. Believe him or don't but that's what he's said on there. I think there is (rightly) a concern on both P&B and here that they are both, to an extent, echo chambers. The deal as it stands is absolute dugshite; for the reasons we have all discussed over the last 5 days and the Society has laid out. I think the majority of posters on here and P&B will have a far greater understanding of the proposal now thanks to discussions and work done by others to work through the valuations etc. I would argue that a fair chunk of the support who will have a vote via the WS, don't have that level of understanding and will see £2m investment and the chance of a TV deal and potentially take a punt. Now, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, nor do I think either board or the posters on it are superior to the other or to fans who don't post on either, but you can absolutely argue that those who post on here and P&B will be better informed than those who don't. So, being honest, I think that there is reason to be concerned that this will get voted through in its current form if it comes to that. Also, all of what @David just said, too.

Sadly even he can't stop passive, narrow tactics from the manager that play right into Germany's hands. 🫠🙄

Is Kelly in the Scotland squad? If only the club had posted some content for me to realise.

He did, posted it earlier today.

True, forgot about him. Not convinced he's going to be physical enough to survive being anything other than an impact sub but aye, that's a fair point.

Dickie is a chartered surveyor, not accountant; he counts bricks for a living, not money. 😅

Yes, agreed. I've spoken to a few folk with decent club sources who say the management team rate Ox quite highly. If that's the case it does beg the question why we didn't bring him in instead of Kelly at points, but I guess if we said you'll get next season as #1 and us playing Kelly gets us Euros cash to bolster the shambles that played in front of him, it makes a bit of sense. Someone said on P&B or here, I forget which, a couple of weeks ago (or days, what a fucking week it's been) that we'd missed out on 4 keepers. One of them was that Brentford lad that went on loan to St Mirren.

If we get these two in (I doubt Burns would put his name to either if we weren't) and sort out a left wing back I think we're doing pretty well. I would love to get another attacking mid type, along with a winger or two; that way we have some options to change shape/switch it up if the 3-4-2-1 / 3-5-2 isn't working.

It's something around a single entity owning 75% and legal issues around that with the structure of the Well Society, or something along those lines. Bit of a murky legal area I believe but I'm no expert.

The WS' shareholding went below 75%.

We're what, not even 6 months on from the Chairman and ex-CEO having to clarify if our manager had a contract beyond last month or not? I would argue that lessons haven't and will continue to not be learned by the Chairman and some members of the Executive Board based on this whole debacle. Who on earth thought announcing a deal as important as this one should be done with such a God-awful statement, structured appallingly and essentially written to try and pull the (wild sheep's) wool over our eyes? I am very much looking forward to the statement and what it says, although I doubt it will say much of anything (perhaps naively @steelboy?👀😂), but I'm sure it will if Barmack's position has changed and as steelboy has already mentioned, to see if our outgoing Chairman is willing to say what he really thinks of the WS and the club's future. This is particularly pertinent because he said at the AGM that his preference is for the WS to succeed and the club not to need any external investment... How can it possibly do that under these ridiculous terms?! My one comment to back up what others have said throughout today is that this all feels very business like; the first offer is shite and was always going to be rejected... Erik tweaks it to retain 51% for the Society and then that appeases enough people to get it through, because it's a big headline change. This all happens when the basis of the value of the offer is still absolute shite, but is brushed past by enough people because "yay, fan ownership!" etc. Oh and the statement will absolutely mention Liam Kelly earning his fourth Scotland-bench arse splinter tomorrow night.

Of course that's what he's doing, it's as transparent as the windows that Rangers fans enjoy licking during marching season. Where have I said that he's convinced me of anything by what he's said on there? The only thing that he's at least helped confirm or lead us to that I'm willing to take on is that the Club/Exec Board have withheld or significantly watered down feedback from the WS Board. All I said initially was that I thought it was fair enough he was engaging, if you want to extrapolate that point to calling me naive and lecturing me, on you go. I'm far from that and all it continues to do is show just how disparaging you can be about your fellow fans because it's how you want to choose to think of me and others on here.

Of all the things to fire at me after the last few days, when you've seen my contributions and comments on all of this, really?

Quiet you, this is our nest and we can chirp how we want to.

He's mentioned that he's less inclined to change the valuation (for obvious reasons I guess, it gives him a great deal) but that he's willing to listen to people's ideas etc. on the structure I guess? He said he's going to take the WS statement and other people's ideas on board. I think it was @David and a few others who have said that he needs to think carefully about how split the fan base could become over this, i.e. he needs to avoid a pyrrhic 'victory'. He is never going to please everyone but I think he's realised that if he starts off with the majority of the WS Board not aligned with him (has Feely resigned yet?), there's really no point to all of this; as he's wanting to do it collectively and collaboratively. Fair fucks to him, I still find it all a bit mental that he's spent the week discussing and debating things on a public forum.

Yer Auntie's Mum's dug can be verified on yon Tweeter these days, right enough. Also even if Barca are interested, they have got absolutely fuck all money so unless it's all up front, off they fuck.