StAndrew7

I made this point on P&B the other day and I am by no ways or means defending their decision when I say this, but by voting for the investment to go through, the two WS reps on the board were technically following the wishes of the Society membership. The results of the vote earlier in the year made it clear the membership was interested in hearing options that could dilute the overall shareholdings below majority stake. So they've carried out the wishes of the Society by putting it through. My biggest issue with all of this, is the terms which come with it and how it seems to the vast majority if not all of us that it's a poor deal. It is also starting to become apparent that the two WS reps on the Exec Board haven't represented the views of the WS Board as a whole, or at least stopped the feedback from the WS board getting to Barmack based on what EB has been saying on P&B.

Nowhere near enough based on the patter on this thread.

Yeah, his latest post with responses from the finance director in it are excellent.

They have though, the Executive Board have backed this deal "unanimously", so that's their plan for the future.

I guess it is and it isn't. I would imagine the Society won't be looking to increase their shareholding, for one. And to be fair to them, that's exactly what they said they'd propose, an alternative to the external investment. I can't see a reason why the Society might not discuss/propose reducing its shareholding to allow for investment in its plan, provided it doesn't dilute its holding below 51%. Ultimately that's helping safeguard the club whilst also sticking to the ethos of it being the majority shareholder. So, if that is indeed part of the plan, why not propose talking to Wild Sheep if/when this current offer is rejected? Well, the (now remaining) WS Board has kind of alluded to that in their statement on Monday. I think, ultimately that's the pipe dream. This current proposal goes, along with the Executive Board members backing it and we lick our collective wounds, sort out the club hierarchy and open negotiations with Erik again. I get the feeling he's willing to listen and understand viewpoints and debate things. Granted, he's basically on P&B trying to sell his deal to the fans (which is his perogative in this instance, ultimately this is the only deal that's on the table currently and works for him).

I don't think anyone can answer that until it's been launched, really. I've heard some snippets of what's been going on and I think it'll certainly be a well thought out and realistic plan for the Society to move forward, increase its input to the club and look to improve and support it financially. Whether or not that meets expectations of people is up to them. Unless one of the Board were to come on and discuss it at length but I think they've got their hands full trying to get it finalised right now, amongst other stuff that's going on!

Yeah, Vietnam 91 has done some really good work on the sums of all of this, kudos. McMahon banged on at the AGM about making sure we had proper financial due diligence consultants appointed to run things; this clearly hasn't been done because he's now hung about far longer than I believe he said he would to force this through. This is on my list of questions to put to the Club about this "deal". I wouldn't be surprised if the valuation was basically put to Barmack based on the Exec Board doing some post-it note maths and his own people/accountants have gone "Erm, aye, that's fine" and rubbed their hands with glee.

I absolutely agree with you there but if the former point is correct, the latter cannot continue without the WS actively involved and the Exec Board members who let it happen in the first place as far away from it as possible. It reads to me like they've been, for want of a better expression, gaslighting Barmack to get to this deal telling him that it'll be fine and dandy, when the WS Board feedback more than likely said it wasn't going to be acceptable. Which then leads to other questions about how well the WS have been represented on the Exec Board by Messers Dickie and Feely... But I think we can all get to the same conclusions there based on the events of the last few days.

From Barmack's comments late last night on P&B, it very much seems like a lot of information that was supposed (?) to be fed back to him hasn't been, particularly feedback on it from the Society. I'm beginning to get more convinced that he's been led down the path by individuals on the Exec Board that this would go through and that it would all be fine etc. The ideal situation for me now is that this deal gets launched, the Exec Board are forced to resign and then the Society, along with Caldwell and the other remaining executives at the club reopen negotiations with Barmack.

Interesting that Barmack is saying on P&B that he didn't always receive the feedback of the WS Board from (I assume) the Executive Board/outgoing chairman... I wonder why?

I'll need to fight to make sure the first football related clothing item is Motherwell related rather than Manchester United, so let me sort that one first. 😅

Again, chapeau etc. for the compliments and I'm happy to help where I can, but Board membership isn't quite for me yet. First baby is due in August and not sure the good lady her indoors would be too pleased with me. 😅

That's how they painted it at the AGM, yes. But that's also seemingly how McMahon in particular wants it to remain. I don't expect it to be how the Society's proposed new strategy/plan will paint it.

I've only just joined the WS today, so maybe give me time. 😄 Although thank you very much for the show of confidence!

Aye, David Lindsay was appointed, Caldwell joined as well but I don't know if he has a vote or not?

They resigned because they had no choice. They voted in favour of the proposal from Barmack and that fundamentally went against their role as board members as laid out in the Society's articles of association. Frankly, the fact they've chosen to resign before their plan is released, to me anyway, demonstrates they weren't in favour fan ownership moving forward at all and were in favour of the investment diluting it. So they should never have been there in the first place, or resigned due to a significant conflict of interest. Dickie from my understanding remains on the Executive Board, firmly aligned with the Chairman.

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.

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.

This is top of my list for questions to the Club, when I get down to writing them later in the week; this absolutely has to be clarified.

The Well Society are the owners, there isn't any defacto about it. I think there's a decent chance that a reinvigorated Society, working alongside a CEO with actual business acumen and experience of working for a long time in the industry (rather than one who chats on Twitter a lot, or a meddling outgoing chairman), will provide a fairly decent wedge of new/additional income into the club. It may not be "investment per se" but I think that achieving an increase in club income in the order of £350k a year outside of transfers is absolutely achievable, yes. As for diluting their shareholding? I think as long as the Society retains 51% ownership and the investors know what they're buying into, I think the WS Board would definitely have to consider it and if it works, put it to the vote, yes. Just my opinion, mind. I'm not speaking for them!

Based on past history and lack of much of anything to drive it forward, I would have absolutely agreed with the point in bold. But I think, like you say, it's crucial to give the WS the opportunity to demonstrate that it can be. Out of interest; why d'you think that?

Of course not and the cynic in me absolutely agrees with you, but from what I've seen and heard, he certainly doesn't come across that way. In 6 years time, who knows, I guess?

Oh, I absolutely understand that position; but ultimately £2m over 6 seasons isn't all of a sudden going to propel us into the top-6 and be competing for European football every season. Look at Hibs and Aberdeen; budgets massively exceeding ours and they're right down here with us. Also, it's £2million investment to lose control of the club. That needs to be stated quite clearly. Honest question to those fans you mention (you may/may not be one of them so don't feel the need to reply), though; what do they actually expect from a Motherwell team? We've been top flight for 40 years and only seriously been threatened by relegation once in the last 15 years, have been to cup finals, finished 2nd twice in the league and played in Europe on multiple occasions. We have a core fan base of 4,500. I think that's absolutely brilliant for us as a club. If fans want something to change, great; why not be a part of it and work with the Society to become even stronger? As for the Society, they are going to do that and will put that plan out as soon as they can. I understand the malaise around the WS (I've only just signed up myself) but I really do hope and expect that these unhappy fans give them the opportunity to prove that they can become more of a force within the club hierarchy, both in terms of decision making and financially. Also, your last point isn't strictly true; there was an offer in the last 10 years or so for someone to take 25% of the club by providing an injection of cash but recoup their money and make profit on transfer fees. It was rightly rejected. Can't remember when it was, though. I think we can afford to be picky, here. Erik Barmack works isn't the only guy in his position (or in a similar position) looking to invest in a football club; if this is voted down he may well go off, lick his wounds and come back and refine his bid alongside the Society/Caldwell to make it more palatable in the long-term to both parties, without the meddling of the outgoing chairman. The Society said in their statement that they'd look/want to continue discussions with Wild Sheep Sports to see if something can happen. And for the record, I don't think EB is a bad guy wanting to rip the arse out the club, I think he's genuinely interested in doing something that benefits him and the club and secures its future; I just think he's been led to a deal structured by McMahon which he was told would go through without issue.

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.

It was always going to be, from my understanding. I would anticipate that their plans have been sped up/given more impetus by the investment etc. but you'd need one of the Board to confirm it for certain. Cheers. I think the issue with the Society with Les is that it was taken away from what it was originally intended to be (i.e. a true fan ownership vehicle/route); there are several others on here who have openly expressed their disdain at its move away from its initial purpose when Les got involved. I don't think the board are doing anything other than returning the Society to its original purpose, as intended under its Articles of Association. The articles been quoted quite a few times in the last 24 hours in relation to Messers Dickie and Feely and their backing of the bid as members of the Exec Board, which fundamentally alters the aim, structure and goals of the Society. They cannot simultaneously support both the proposed investment and the aims of the Society; Dickie resigning and the supporting statement has nailed his colours to the mast. He's clearly never been that interested in fan ownership. Feely's blurb on the Society board states he is a "passionate advocate of fan ownership". I would argue not. As for getting their vision out before or during the voting period, they've said that's their intention; so I guess it's wait and see until we can cast our eyes over it.