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.

The board of the society voted 6-3 against the proposal. Should this even go to a ballot of members. My reading of the board statement says the deal breaches several of the Objects of the Society. And will the voting require a 2/3rds majority as set out in the rules https://mutuals.fca.org.uk/Search/Society/12455 and those rules state that even a 2/3rds vote does not require the board to break the rules of the society. It is clear this deal goes against many of the Objects of the Society so have the Board of the Society got legal advice to ask if this vote is even legal without amendment to the rules of the Society?

Run the club the way it has been for the last decade. Invest in the squad in the right ways. Try and avoid costly situation like the Alexander exit. The cash flow of the club is going to increase as new TV rights for the league increase. Commercial deals increase. There is rumours of a Theo Bair transfer of around £1m. Lennon Miller is easily worth 5x that. And you think the club should be handed over for a pittance? Given The Well Society also has to forgive half the money owed to the club it seems like Erik doesn't actually have the money. He is taking the Well Society monney for himself in effect. That should be a complete non-starter and I don't know why anyone in charge of the well society should have agreed to that. And after he has taken our money he says that we can buy back the shares we gave him at an inflated price.

The £3m "loss" is not an ongoing situation. Money was given during Covid as an interest free loan and the club chose to spend some of that money on changes to the park and hunter stand. That is a one time expense. That was not related to any safety certificate. The main stand has had some issues in the past that needed addressing but i believe that is now sorted and not a large on going cost. So your point about sustainability is completely wide of the mark.

He clearly had the intent on having an investor take a majority shareholding otherwise there would have been no straw poll of Well Society members to ask that very question. It is frog in the boiling pot trick. Like this. That is not what the poll asked. But now people think the Well Society has already shown that it is putting it majority share of the club up for sale.

Here is a question then. If the Well Society doesn't have a majority on the board. Can the board issue new shares and sell them to an investor without the approval of the Well Society?

He would be happier with a crate of guinness

Yaas. Superb spirit. Everyone worked their arses off and grabbing the lead after conceding the equaliser., no words.

We already have a mixture of Private and Fan ownership. Around 30% of the club is own outside of the Well Society. If the numbers going around are true then it is way off the value of the club.

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about? Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

He is going for less than Celtic paid us so no sell on money.