StAndrew7

Aye I totally understand that. Definitely email the society as suggested for full answers. There will be up to date figures in the latest accounts on Companies House for the WS loan as well.

1. About 850k, I think. Can't answer the rest for certain but I'm sure others can.

I think this is absolutely true. We all know a yes vote will lead to a significant change in the WS almost immediately; there will be one person on the board as a result of resignations and the whole thing will need to be rebuilt. That could take the first 3/6/9/12* months of Barmack's reign. I would also hazard a guess that people willing to fill the spaces on the board will (in the majority, anyway) be from one "camp" of the vote, which could then lead to a nodding through of a lot of Erik's ideas without much of a challenge to them. *Delete as appropriate

I believe the biggest cause is "training with Liam Gordon".

I think I'm somewhere in between you and @Cameron_Mcd; I'd probably keep my DD going for the first 2 years but review it every 6 months or so against Erik's performance. As much as I don't want the WS to essentially fund his projects, if things don't go well the money needed to sort the buyback out and the guarantee the Club going forward per the outgoing chairman's chat at the AGM is a going to be a substantial challenge. Equally, the really snide bastard in me thinks the people that vote for this should be the ones sorting the mess out if it happens, but that's not really how it works. If it works I'll hold my hands up and admit I as wrong.

This is absolutely fucking scandalous. Surely this needs to be stopped or paused now, or at the very least his business plan removed from the supporting documentation. How on earth this got past the Club without having been checked in any capacity is absolutely horrendous. If this is the level of due diligence done on what's been provided/issued to them, this whole thing has descended into (even more of) a farce.

That mean you've decided, then? 👀 🤣

I think the thing I would point out, is that the vote is essentially for or against Erik's investment plan. If it goes through, we're effectively at his mercy because of the control he'll receive from the start. £330k for 3 seats on the board and the chairmanship. Just over 1/3 of what the WS have in the Club right now and he's receiving far more than the Society ever has. The WS's vision/proposal is designed to be worked on collaboratively with the fans, outside investors and it means we still control the Club. We can all have a say in that and get involved with it (or choose not to be); that excites me far, far more than Erik taking the reigns and, for example, spending £100k on an app, which a significant number of football media professionals have already called into question. Personally, I would remember what the our Outgoing Chairman (who is pushing so vehemently for this) said about the club in January: Why the need to rush this through, then, when there are some pretty spectacular issues still needing clarified, per @David's posts? Edit: also, just to add. The fact the Well Society had to produce the plan they did in all of this, shows just how badly the outgoing chairman has done his job over the last 3-5 years. I mentioned this before, but he spoke about "selling our story" to Netflix/Amazon at every AGM over that period and did nothing about it. Why? Because things were ticking along fine. We'd sold Moult, Turnbull, Scott, Heneghan, Kipre and others, which basically meant we were secure. We barely did any strategic thinking/projects over a significant period of time because everything was going fine and we lost a (talented, if somewhat controversial at times) Headr of Comms and then a really committed CEO to have them replaced by... no-one because the position was canned and then no-one for over a year because the candidates they interviewed all rejected the job, then they just didn't bother restarting the recruitment. We've hit the point where he now wants to leave his position and all of a sudden we're needing investment and it needs to be done NOW...

Fair enough... but how are you voting? 🤣

Which is exactly what's proposed in the Society's plan, without the need to give up 3 seats and chairmanship of the executive board and de facto control of the Club for £330k in the first year?

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.