StAndrew7

Absolutely ganting (not Kofi, he's dreamy AF):

To counter that (and by no means is this intended as having a go at you): Firstly; are we going against a guy with a plan? Where are the details of his sources of funds for his planned investments (other than £330k/year), proposals for increasing revenue, the rates of return on his (and the Society's) ongoing injections of cash into the club? All I've seen on the official statement on the club website and from Barmack directly on P&B are buzzwords and corporate speak, with the odd bit of language around interest in a docu-series about the club. So I ask, genuinely; what plan have you seen that isn't high-level stuff? In my work we look at potential returns of investment very early in processes to prevent clients committing to anything that just doesn't make sense. Our outgoing chairman said at the AGM that we should have external financial experts doing the due diligence on this; has that been carried out and what was the outcome? To make a decision on whether or not this is suitable, we need details which we either haven't been given yet, or aren't available at all. If it's the former, I'd question why they've not been made available. If it's the latter, I'd question as to why this is even going ahead. Secondly, The Well Society WERE this for a long time, I absolutely agree; which is exactly why I didn't sign up to become a member until today. I made the decision because, frankly, the Society is going to need everyone to rally around it - even if the proposed investment goes through, otherwise it will cease to exist and our "great wee fan owned clubTM" won't be fan owned any more. A lot of the decisions made in the last 10 years since Les got involved have been to diminish the influence of the Society, I think that's abundantly clear; removal of the standalone website to a section buried on the Club's, lack of control on the Exec Board and, frankly, previous boards made up of yes men and women, who allowed the Society to essentially become a provider of soft loans to the club rather than being the majority shareholding body it was/is intended to be. The new board elected in October have been working incredibly hard on their plan, whilst also meeting for 3 or 4 hours at a time to discuss the investment, in their own time as volunteers. I think a 6-month turnaround on this may well be deemed by many as too slow, but the outside factors influencing it all can't be ignored. They have told us they have a vision and strategic plan and they have said they're going to launch it shortly (before the voting window, or at least to coincide with it starting): I think the time to judge the Society board on things like this is in 3 or 4 weeks, when their plan(s) have been published to the membership and wider supporters to better understand them.

My understanding from the Society's statement and a few others I've heard from is that this will be launched fairly soon off the back of yesterday's announcement.

We don't know that for certain, but you would assume that Feely and Dickie are two, we they were part of the "unanimous" decision to back the proposal by the Executive Board. Given that Maureen Downie has resigned as well, it's a safe bet she's the other. Has Feely resigned yet?

Can be seen here! Edit: quite pleased with this signing; feels like exactly the kind of player we should be going for.

1) As far as I'm aware, no. It's been discussed at the last 3 or 4 AGMs but I'm not sure how much the WS were consulted on it. I would imagine that Dickie and Feeley were aware, being on the board with McMahon who led the charge. 2) I assume this stems from point 1 and the Society's overall involvement in things; I don't think the WS is against external investment but I think the WS board (6 of them, anyway) are right to protect its status as the majority shareholder in the club. 3) Can't really comment on that, hopefully will get some information on the fine print from my questions e-mail later in the week. 4) The Well Society as the majority shareholder has the final say (it says that on the Club statement, at least); if the WS comes back and rejects the bid, that's the end of it. Although I think someone posted (I forget who, sorry) asking the question as to what majority is required for it to go through; it could be as high as 75%? I await this with baited breath...

On your first point, I would imagine some due diligence has been done, yes, but if the exec board low-balled it initially (which is probably the case tbh, I've heard that during the initial negotiations the terms were worse than this, so they probably negotiated to this and thought "fuck it"), he'd rightly just jump at those terms. I think this is the crux of things; we can't presume anything about what's being proposed, because there's absolutely nothing to demonstrate what the plan is moving forward other than some text on the club website and his posts on P&B. There's absolutely no substance to this.

I'll be asking for the details of that, but I think it may well be as simple as McMahon/The Exec Board saying "Aye, £330k over 6 years for 49% means the club is worth this by extrapolation" less the liabilities they've attributed to the club. My main thrust of questioning for that will be why the entire value of the COVID loan has been applied to a 6-year period of investment when the payment terms are interest free over 20 years (or more, I can't remember the exact terms).

Ahh, got you. And of course there's nothing you can do about them, I assume?

By the dilution, you mean? Also, another random thought; I'm not sure how this works for private shareholders, just yet. It appears that I would have to invest the equivalent value of 8% at £330k for me to retain my level of holding, is that correct?

Based on the (limited) information on the club website, the Barmacks' letter says that they'd be looking to attract additional investment in the future and if they did, they'd then sell part of their shareholding to those parties; I imagine at a decent profit, if the plan has been a success. That would then, I guess (although I'm clutching a bit here without quite understanding it all) mean their shareholding is diluted, to the point where the WS/private fan shareholders hold a larger majority over the others. I don't know what that would do to the Chairmanship (I imagine it'd mean EB would have to relinquish his status, but perhaps not?) From what I can see, there's also nothing to stop him buying additional privately owned shares to increase his holding after the 6-years are up; that's what worries me (aside from this being an absolutely shite deal). If it's in the spirit of a German 51/49 model which he's said over on P&B (although some people have shown a lack of understanding of what that means; the 51 doesn't have to be a single entity), that should be prevented from happening in whatever articles are drawn up, if the WS ends up voting in favour. I just so happen to be off on holiday for the rest of this week after today, so I'm going to spend some time trying to come up with a fairly substantial list of questions to send to the e-mail address the club has provided. If anyone who's not in the WS or a shareholder wants to ask anything, ping me a DM and I'll try to include it.

This.

Aye, it's abhorrent stuff.

Also, for those asking for the Well Society's business plan/model etc. I do hope you're expecting the same from Barmack? There' is absolutely no mention of a business plan detailing his plans for returns, cash flow, additional investors or how it's going to provide a return. If McMahon really does think he's going to convince people to vote for this based on what's on the website, he's deluded. I'll be sending a comprehensive request for information to the e-mail address provided in the coming days, just to try and understand exactly what is being proposed here.

Aye it's appalling maths/economics all round. It's pathetic.

Reading between the lines here, I do get impression that McMahon has absolutely led Barmack on with even suggesting a bid as derisory as this could get through; I do feel for EB a bit here. He seems like a genuinely good guy who's interested in doing something with the club. The issue is it's a derisory offer that should be shot down; but it doesn't mean there isn't something there that's worth considering.

Not for me. Fan ownership is the line in the sand.

I still am (although I've probably said somewhere in the past 51% fan ownership as well)? I haven't said anywhere I'm in favour of what's been proposed, very much the opposite; the point I'm making (probably badly, I'm still pissed off) is that if people are undecided on it based on what's been released today, they should wait to read what the WS are proposing to help inform whatever decision they want to make. Edit: having re-read what I posted, I can see how you got there. For clarity; this can get in the fucking sea where it belongs (in my opinion).

Absolutely, and as @steelboy has rightly pointed out, there's nothing to stop Barmack from purchasing other private shareholders' stakes to increase his own. His letter mentions selling his own stake down to bring in additional investment BUT there's no guarantees that's what will happen.

It's taken so long because the previous board was dominated by people who weren't interested in doing much of anything other than giving the club cash when it was needed. The fundamental reason for the WS' existence changed when the deal with Les was signed and that brought about the stagnation we've seen. That's been well commented on/discussed on here over the last few months. The new WS Board have said they'll accelerate the launch of their own proposal off the back of this announcement; I think we have to give it due consideration when it's released and use that to help inform whatever decision we make when voting because despite it not really being sold as this, this is fundamentally a vote for, or against, fan ownership, at least over the next 2 years whilst the buyback is still an option.

I'm going to have to take some time to digest things better than the skim I just gave them, but would be interested in your thoughts. They're both (tonally, anyway) very different. One paints it as a grand opportunity for the club, the other very much doesn't, both for obvious reasons. Is anyone else drastically disappointed with how the details have been announced? Like, I understand the need to get things out there, but as a shareholder I'd have expected far more than just a post in the website inviting me to e-mail the club with questions.

Having calmed down a bit after my initial outrage with this offer, there are a few things that initially stick out for me: Barmack has said he's already been approached by a TV channel about a docu-series based on the club; great! Let's do that and prove that the business model/ideas that he has works and then start to talk again, but without McMahon at the top. The fact the WS are being put in the position of potentially draining their cash reserves (the very reserves the Chairman said were needed every year to guarantee the operations of the club) to support buyback of shares in 2 years time (as well as continue to add to the club at £100k/year), should, in my eyes, be a big red flag. As should EB immediately receiving 3 seats and chairmanship with the casting vote of the Executive Board after taking 8% of the shares for £300k. It's pure folly.

The Outgoing Chairman will be gone. If this fails (as it should, imho) then I imagine several others will have no choice but to resign.

Absolutely feeling the sentiment of all. Get this offer thrown into the fucking sea where it belongs.

I think including Blaney in there is a bit harsh; he was one of the few who I saw in the second half of the season (when he played) that often wasn't out of position, or doing any of the things you mention. The others I absolutely agree with.