Casagolda

Bevis scores the winner for Uganda vs South Sudan https://x.com/NBSportUg/status/1844788043749712109

Personally I would have ran a smear campaign BEFORE the elections. But then the people who are trying to smear Derek don't seem to be very smart.

Kettlewell isn't going to shift from a back 5. Especially after filling half the squad with defenders.

Well you can see how stubburn Kettlewell is. He will keep playing O'Donnell the same way he kept playing Liam Kelly. O'Donnell shouldn't have been re-signed since we have spent the last 2 years trying to find a better right back.

From Erik's own figures there is a £1.3m shortfall over the first 2 years of the deal. Which is the exact time he will realise that he knows nothing about Scottish football and will try and get his money back from the Well Society. Erik gets to mess around for free for 2 years and all it will cost us is at least £2m.

How can they guaranteed the % of shares the Well Society or Erik Barmack will hold if this is the case? If The Well Society is guaranteed 50.1% and current shareholder can buy then wouldn't Barmack's share % fall? Or is the possible Well Society % a max of 50.1%? and could still fall below a majority?

This a huge change and there must be adequate time for scrutiny before any Well Society vote. There must be a full explanation of how many new shares are planning to be be issued per year and how much they will cost. And this still doesnn't address the major issue that Barmack's offer is way below the value of the club.

The board also have a duty to stay within the rules of society which includes the Objects. They have produced material that says they clearly believe the Barmack bid will breach the rules of the society. in that case they must either kick the bid into touch as they cannot legally OK it - or- they call a general meeting and attempt to change the rules.

The bold is not true. Read your Well Society rules. The board have the power to decide everything. (not including rule changes) Tthe elected board have the power to direct the society as they wish. Which is the point of elections. We pick people and they run the society. So the club board can demand a shareholder vote needed for their propositions like issuing at eyewatering amount of new shares to be sold at rock bottom prices. But the Well Society board can themselves decide how to vote with our 71% of shares without asking members. For example the Well Society members were not balloted every time the club has appointed a new director.

Derek did the Well Society take the decision to ballot members before or after Erik Barmack agreed his offer with the club board? And how much worse would an offer need to be before the Well Society board outright rejected an investment without a ballot?

Have you had legal advice on the ballot being sufficient for the Well Society to diminish its position within the club? You can say the club is not for sale but issuing a huge amount of new shares is effectively the same thing? Is there going to be a publication of how and when additional shares will be issued. Communication from the cliub board on this front has been sparse.

If Members disagree with the board they can call a general meeting and direct the board as they wish. As long as it is within the current rules of the society. if someone wants to direct the board to do something outside the rules of the society then they need to propose an amendment to the rules of the well society, win that vote then they can vote on their motion to direct the board.

The whole plan of Jim McMahon requires that the Well Society to be too meek and allow him to run over the top of it. It is time for the Well Society board to step up. It is 6-1 in current board members against this proposal. That should be enough to put the whole thing in the bin with no need for a vote.

The Well Society Board do not seem to realise they have the power to stop this in its tracks. Instead of newspaper interviews it is time to call general meetings of the Society and the football club to get things in order. Why has the club been able to dictate to the well society the time table of the vote? If the board of the well society don't think the timescale is prudent take official actions to change it. The Well Society Board need to realise they have legal powers and protections. They have said this is an existential issue for the society and the club. But they seem scared to put a few noses out of joint and do what is necessary to stop this.

IDK it is 2/3rds of the board against the idea. The Co-Chairs should hold no more weight than another board member. I still see legal issues with the very idea of this vote with the rules of the society as they are currently constituted. I think there needs to be an amendment to the rules at a general meeting that changes some of the fundamental objectives of the society before this can proceed. Obviously there was the indicative vote on whether we should consider giving up majority control but that cannot be binding over the regulations of the Society. It should need a proper motion with text deleted from the Objectives of the Society.