joewarkfanclub

Sometimes its best not to over complicate things! 😆😆😆

I dont know anything for a fact. Only the investor and the club know what the deal is (or should). But some of our fans seem to think that outside investment is some sort of no risk Nirvana where we never have to pay any money back and we can instantly spend more money on players. Given how negative many are being about fan ownership, I think its important that someone highlights the risks on the other side of the fence. I do want to re-iterate though, that I wont make my own mind up one way or the other until I see the detail of the deal.

By exploring other revenue streams not currently being tapped. No different than the investor who is looking for control of the club. The money he intends to invest wont be free. He wants it back with interest. So he will have to find ways of getting more money into the club. Otherwise he and we dont make any more money. The advantage he has at the moment is that he comes from a corporate background and clearly has experience in that field. That doesnt mean to say that there arent smart peoplenon the WS Board noe though with ideas of their own.

Because the people that were elected to the WS Board were happy to allow the executive board to keep the Society at arms length. Thats no longer the case.

You werent the only one! I was shouting at him to leave the kick alone for the very same reason. He shut me up good and proper! Absolute worldy!

Of course they can. But whats the point? If you want to remain a shareholder you can buy an ordinary share. The purpose of the Society was to deliver a fan owned club. And it suceeded in that regard. If the club is no longer fan owned, the reason for the Society no longer exists. I will simply stop my direct debit and put money into the club some other way of my choosing.

PS. I agree with David, in that if this deal goes through (and I might yet vote for it) and the Society no longer has majority shareholding, I will no longer feel the need to continue my subscription. In my opinion, if you give away majority shareholding the purpose of the Society no longer exists and you may as well wind it up. Not sure if the Board or investors hace considered that.......

This debate really is just going round in circles. I guess thats what happens when we have no game to discuss and a vacuum of information. FWIW, although my preference is to remain majority fan owned and I am sceptical about this investor for now, I'm more than happy to wait and see the detail before making a final decision. There are one or two things worth repeating though. Although Ive been a member of the Well Society since its inception, there have been many things around it I have not been satisfied by. It has always seemed to me that the Executive Board have tried to keep the Society at arms length and only really consulted it when it needed to. Happy to have the safety net it provided, but really viewed it as an inconvenience. Now that might not be entirely fair, but thats how it has felt, to me at least. I sense there has been a change since the last WS Board elections and that some power and control has been wrestled back, and Im keen to see what direction that takes now that there might finally be a chance to make the fan ownership model mean something more tangible. Obviously the timing of this bid moves the timeframe forward for the Society and they will need to act quickly to get their ideas across and show that they can work. Re the bid, I dont know where the figures came from or whether they are correct, but for argument sake, a bid of £1.5m over a specified period isnt the kind of offer thats going to get me excited, and its certainly not the kind of figure that should see us selling controlling interest of the club for. Our club is worth considerably more than £3m regardless of how shit or desperate anyone thinks we are at the monent. Its not a figure we can turn our noses up at though, and if there was a way of getting that kind of investment into the club whilst keeping majority shareholding and the promise that we will still keep a majority share of player trading, then it might be worth looking at. At the end of the day, we need a deal which leaves us with more money coming into the club, not less. So whilst £1.5m now seems appealing, if the amount we bring in for player trading goes down, there doesnt seem much point. Its up to Mr Barmack to demonstrate he has the business skills and knowledge to grow the business and allow him to do that whilst making a profit on his own investment. In the meantime, I dont think a figure of £1.5m over 3 or even 5 years is revenue that is necessarily outwith the reach of the Society. But they dont have a lot of time to show it can be done and would be a viable alternative.

This all day long. We need to ditch the weird formation and get our best players playing in their best positions. Vale is great with his back to goal and holding the ball up and playing others in. Bair is better running in behind. Davor runs around and breaks shit up. Miller and Spittal are both best at controlling the tempo and picking a pass. Gent is great at beating his man and driving crosses across the 6 yard box. Just do that. And if the defence could maybe not chuck any in our own net that would be grand!

Are cup goals not included? Not that he needs any more entries, but Spittal's free kick v Alloa has to be a contender. Of those in the compilation, Slattery's is the best team goal. Individually its between Spittals screamer v Ross County and The Bairs dink.

Ive never understood this logic. Surely you are interested in how much money the manager has to spend on new players in the close season. As has been already stated the difference of a couple of places could be £125k. That could be the difference in getting a couple of our 1st choice targets, or having to settle for "projects" again. Every game between now and the end of the season is important to us. We have a big rebuild again in the summer. The more money we have for that the better.

Hopefully a more balanced squad that will allow us to play more than one way!

The wind spoiled the game today. Thought we started the brighter although Hibs grew into it and were the more dangerous team for 10 -15 minutes in the middle of the half. Thought we might have got the advantage with the wind behind us but it didnt really seem to pan out that way. Pretty scrappy second half and although Kelly made a couple of good saves, I didnt think there was much between the teams. SK's substitutions continue to baffle me. I felt sure we were going to a back 4 when he took SOD off for Nicholson which would have been the obvious move, so to see Nicholson playing wing back seemed weird and didnt really play to his strengths Taking off both Miller and Spittal and firing on 2 forward players when we already had Bair and Moses on the pitch seemed a bit mental, albeit we ultimately got the equaliser. It felt that we got it in spite of the changes not because of them. Mental to think we should have won it at the end with Shaws chance.

Surprised Bevis isnt on that list.....

Gent.

Not too much to argue about there. Devine probably better foing forward than SOD, but SOD has been pretty steady at the back this season. Probably his best since he joined us. I like Mugabi in the centre of the 3 just to clear the ball at set pieces, but maybe not so much an issue v Hibs. The rest picks itself.

As far as Im aware its only audio available officially via MFCTV in the Uk. There may be ways to get it online but not officially via the club........

Hold....... Hold....... Hold.......

My view is that no one is in a position to make a decision on what way they would vote right now as none of us has any detail of what the deal is. Once that is known, if as Steelboy claims, it doesnt value MFC appropriately AND doesnt provide us with a platform to increase our revenue streams, then I would be voting against. If they want a controlling share of the club the offer, for me, would have to be "transformational" for us as a club to be entertained. I dont see these guys as having that sort of money, but lets wait and see.

I addressed that in my next paragraph which you cut. Im not sure what your agenda is here, but no one Ive seen is saying we should roll over and get our tummy tickled. Far from it. But you seem to have already decided that this guy cant be trusted and should be chased. Do you have some knowledge or information that the rest of us dont?

I agree that outside investment would be helpful. But it has to be on the right terms. Some of the figures being quoted, if true, are just derisory. £1.5m for controlling share of the club should be shown the door. If we are honestly looking at that just sell Lennon Miller now and move on. We make more money and still have control of the club. Everyone on the Well Society Board will have their own views, but I dont think Ive heard any of them say they didnt want any investment under any circumstances. I have heard some say that they wouldnt want investment that meant giving away control of the club. But given that the Society exists for that purpose I wouldnt expect any different. The new Society Board have only been in place a short time so, happy to be patient with them. However, they are now under a little bit of pressure to deliver the improvements required given the ongoing investment talks. Re that investment, if we are talking £1.5m for 20% of the club with the Society retaining 51% then I think thats closer to where we should be valuing ourselves, albeit I think thats still a little on the low side. Id be more relaxed about the % split on player trading if thats where the investors think they can make their money. But that part of the deal still requires us to be getting a % that improves our current position. Im not worried about where we are right now, I actually feel that its quite exciting as we have a real opportunity to strengthen the club for the future. We just need to ensure that we examine the details closely and make the right decisions.

Must have missed the fact that it was paid. I do recall Flow talking about being in communication with the US club but there were complications because they were outside the regulatory framework. Ive never thought Cadden cooked the scheme up. Always felt is was down to Columbus Crew and his agent. I hold no ill will towards the player but Id rather we didnt end up in the same situation again. Anyway, my post was intended to be light hearted so maybe I should have used some imojis! 😆😆😆

Of course! You could add, not try and wind up our fans on your return to Fir Park having left for no transfer fee and bending international rules to ensure the development fee doesnt get paid!

I dont think its failing either. It could be better, and we could raise more money which would help. But we still exist, we are still in the top league and are doing at least as well as some clubs who are spending way more than we are. I get that all of that could change quickly and having extra investment on the right terms would be advantageous but the Well Society has served a purpose and with the right decision making can continue to do so going forward.

It looks to be about £9.2m all in if correct. Still a hefty sum. Given United are also reported to be wracking up losses and are reportedly around £10m in debt to their "investor" I think folks need to re-assess why they think "fan ownership" is failing........