David

Maybe the club will put away some money to cover us for the infamous "10th place finish and no cup run" that has lots of people on socials ready to press the panic button and hand control to Hollywood Erik.

Went with Balmer. I would have gone with young Dylan Wells if he'd gotten more game time today, he was everywhere. Still a bit rough around the edges, but he has some qualities that suggest with time and coaching he could be a good little player. Nice debut from Balmer. Looks solid at the back, and I think he'll be a threat at set pieces.

Pretty standard stuff for this early in the season really, so no surprises there. I'm quite impressed by young Dylan Wells. He's looked good so far this game. Balmer looks good at the back and a threat at set pieces.

I've long said that Kettlewell is an underrated manager. He's still relatively young in the profession, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him go on to carve a very good career out for himself at a higher level either domestically or down south.

If he has pulled the offer i'm sure we'll be hearing all about how the Well society "scared away" an investor.

Considering what Kettlewell has done with Bair and also Moses of late, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

It matters not a jot where Miller plays. If you don't think our team, and specifically our midfield, is being built around him you're deluded. The team certainly isn't being built around Harry Paton.

The past eight years he's been employed by Netflix to head up production and distribution of international streaming content for the platform. He's experienced and connected in the streaming media world for sure. If we want to make a docuseries on our club, he's certainly the guy we should be working with. When it comes to actually running a business on the level of a multi-million pound football club on another continent? And dealing with the various aspects of that business that being a major investor and Chairman would entail? I think he's vastly underqualified.

Aside from Wild Sheep sports, which is a small media distribution company, he doesn't own anything. He's someone who's very skilled in media, and has worked as an employee at Netflix. He's not a serial entrepreneur or investor of note.

A few things worth bearing in mind as we all get set to vote: The vote is about accepting the Barmacks offer, NOT choosing between the Barmacks offer and the Well Society offer. If we vote against the Barmacks offer, it DOESN'T mean we have to stick with the Society plan. We can still seek other investments. Some people are not impressed with either offer. That's okay. We can reject the Barmacks offer, continue as we are, and look for new opportunities. If we vote to accept the Barmacks offer, that's final. We WON'T have another chance to bring in new investment later. We only get to sell half the club once.

I’ve heard that we've only surpassed the agreed profit threshold on rare occasions, like during cup finals and similar events.

No matter where you stand on the matter, the figures speak for themselves – the new kit is an undeniable success. Could a few minor tweaks to last year's kit have achieved the same impressive sales numbers? Highly unlikely. If only the club itself reaped the rewards from these sales...

There's always the option of supporting the team, but now treating it like any other fan of a team with a "millionaire" owner. You pay for your ticket, for your merchandise or whatever, and you leave the rest of the financial outlay to the people with the money. That's what I'll be doing. I won't be funding the Barmack's side project. I have a feeling that the Well Society moving forward, if the proposal from Barmack is accepted, will need a total rehaul. The current board, and the people who helped put together the new proposal, likely won't be involved. Let's hope that there's some savvy, committed individuals among the Facebook/X ranks who are ready to step up and get involved if they get what they want.

Glad to hear!

He won't. but one of his associates most likely will at least sound you out.

Oh aye, his idea of growing the fanbase in America is mental. I'm not sure why he thinks there would be an appeal there for watching a game like the one you describe at 10am on a Saturday morning if you're on the east coast, or even worse at 7am if you're on the west coast. Any US-based football fan is already catered to with wall to wall English Premier League coverage (where every single game is available live, even 3pm kick offs), and there's the growing MLS for fans who wish to get a more local and live feel to their "soccer." That's on top of the fact that in the US football is competing with NFL, NBA, and MLB for sports fan eyeballs.

There are elements of marketing, AI and improved branding that can help the club. It's foolish to believe otherwise. It's not the 80's or 90's anymore, and what we're doing at the moment needs to be augmented by new technologies and ideas. But, the important point is that such technologies need to be used to complement the core business and community aspect of the club, not replace it. Which is what Barmack is proposing, even if he's paying lip service to the core qualities at the heart of our club. I firmly believe that the Well Society plan will allow for those global relationships that benefit the club and community as a whole, while retaining what makes Motherwell what it is.

Another thing worth considering is that much of what Wild Sheep Sports is offering can be achieved under the new Well Society proposal. The Well Society can secure the clubs financial independence by diversifying and creating dependable revenue streams. This involves forging strategic partnerships with businesses (both local and international) that align with the club’s goals, such as technology firms, health tech companies, and local enterprises. These collaborations will fund infrastructure enhancements, initiate new revenue-generating projects, and ensure the club's financial health, all while maintaining fan ownership. Crafting a robust content and media strategy to unlock additional commercial opportunities isn't rocket science, and is well within the Well Society’s capabilities. The Society can outline a detailed media plan that includes producing a docuseries, enriching online content, and partnering with media outlets to extend the club’s reach. These initiatives will generate new revenue streams and build a larger, more engaged fan base. The only difference is that the Society's plan would incentivise any potential partner to make a success of the docuseries, because if they don't do a good job, they won't get paid at the end. Another strategic area the Well Society can address independently is improving operational systems. By integrating season ticket sales, online marketing, e-commerce, and Well Society memberships into a unified, updated database, the Society can streamline operations and enhance membership accessibility. This integration will boost efficiency and enable more targeted marketing and engagement efforts. Investing in community and youth initiatives is a cornerstone of the Well Society's strategic plan that Barmack simply cannot replicate. The Society can cultivate a sustainable talent pipeline and reinforce the club’s role as a community pillar by enhancing existing community programmes and launching new initiatives centred on health, education, and football training. These efforts will strengthen community ties and foster long-term loyalty. Central to the Well Society's philosophy is maintaining the fan ownership model. The Society can ensure that fan ownership remains at the heart of the club’s governance by promoting transparency, accountability, and community involvement. This approach will preserve the club’s values and traditions while steering its future success. The Well Society can also manage the enhancement of the club’s infrastructure, such as modernising Fir Park and improving training facilities. By prioritising these projects and securing funding through strategic partnerships and community support, the Society can significantly elevate the club’s operational capabilities and overall fan experience. Additionally, the Well Society can independently pursue commercial partnerships and sponsorships, which includes opportunities for stadium naming rights and integrated sponsorship deals with partners. The only difference is that such deals will be struck based upon the viewpoints and interests of the wider fanbase and not just the aims of one group. Basically, the Well Society can independently execute many elements of the Wild Sheep Sports plan. By focusing on financial independence, global presence, media strategy, operational improvements, community engagement, and technological innovation, the Well Society can drive Motherwell FC's long-term success while keeping fan ownership at its core. There's absolutely nothing in the Wild Sheep sports offer that warrants what they're asking for in return.

I'm not just trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince everyone. Also, you don't like the Well Society plan? Fine. We can always keep looking to source new investors. There may be others out there. It's not a case of refusing to work with Barmack means a cast-iron pledge that we ramain fan-owned for eternity. If another group or individual comes along with a plan for investment we can always look at it. But once we sell half the club, that's it. There's no more chances.

Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment. Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder." According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares. However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business. More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments. This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived. If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured. So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society.

Was that directed at me? If so, from everything I’ve shared (and there's been a lot!), that's your takeaway? No concerns about the lack of clarity on penalties for missing those payments (hint: it will happen if this deal goes through. The Well Society simply won't get the support it needs to meet those figures). And sorry, but I'll be as vocal as needed when I believe someone is trying to push a deal that benefits them at the expense of our stadium and potentially puts it at risk. That might not concern you much, but it certainly concerns me.

I'm not going to even comment on the vast majority of the Wild Sheep sports proposal, simply because what they're proposing isn't anything of a surprise really. It's not groundbreaking stuff. And it isn't the real reason behind their proposal. All the talk of passion for the club, and so on? A front. Anyone can see that. Their plan for the club is so bad that it doesn't take a business mastermind to see that very little thought has went into it. What is important, and should be highlighted is the wording used in the small print (isn't that always the case in matters such as these?) Let's look at that: "And for the purposes of clarity, we are not looking to “take over” the Club by purchasing additional shares beyond the shares outlined in our proposed deal. We are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder." Erik Barmack’s recent statement indicates that he and his wife, Courtney, have no plans to purchase additional shares directly. However, this doesn’t rule out the possibility of acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party. This happens all the time in business. Such indirect methods could still allow them to gain control or influence, effectively sidestepping the intended minority shareholder status. Something else in the document regarding the financial contribution of the Well society: "Should TWS not be able to sustain these payments, our firm belief is that this should not be a “backdoor” to further ownership for any of the minority owners. Possible remedies could include extending the term, or some further reduction in debt. Our thinking is that we would need to discuss the most practical solution with TWS that maintains their majority ownership and doesn’t change the ownership structure of Fir Park." "Some further reduction in debt." I can't highlight that point enough. The debt in question is secured against the stadium, and more importantly the ground on which the stadium sits. There is no "or" about it, that's what will be pursued when the Society cannot make those payments. I refer everyone back to this point I made earlier: Impact on Existing Loan: What Could Happen: The £868,000 loan from the Society to the club could be affected. Well, the £434,000 that would remain after 50% of the original amount is converted into shares to help the Well Society maintain a 50.1% majority shareholding in a football club that it would have previously held over 70% in. How It Works: Debt Forgiveness Negotiation: If the Society fails to meet its financial commitments, the club could negotiate to have the loan forgiven in exchange for the Society being forgiven for not making its required payments. It should be mentioned at this point that the Well Society loan is currently secured against the stadium. And more importantly, the ground it sits on. All of a sudden that "clean balance sheet" looks really attractive. Why? For the following reasons: Release of Security: What Happens: If the loan is forgiven, the security (the stadium) associated with the loan would be released. This means the stadium would no longer be collateral for the debt since the debt itself would be eliminated. Implication: Without the loan, the club would own the stadium free and clear of that specific debt obligation. Potential Increased Control for Wild Sheep Sports: Scenario: If Wild Sheep Sports becomes the majority shareholder, and the loan is forgiven, they could have increased control over the club’s assets, including the stadium. Implication: WSS, as the majority shareholder, would have significant influence over decisions regarding the stadium, including the possibility of selling it or remortgaging it to gain finance based against it. So, yeah. That's the end game. A vote for this proposal is a vote to potentially rob your kids and grandkids of a football club to call their own in the future. All because some small-time investor waved a few quid in front of us.

One thing that is absolutely astounding about all of this is that the Heads of Terms mention: "The WS commitment is £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three" yet nothing else is clarified. Here's my question - What happens if the Well Society can't make that commitment at any point? There has to be repercussions? Otherwise, why even quote a number? Now, in the absence of any information on the penalties for missed payments, despite me asking Erik outright and him providing a vague answer about how penalties aren't included in Heads of Terms, let's have a look at some of the penalties I've seen enacted in the past, and how they could apply to the Well Society: Equity Dilution: What Could Happen: The Well Society’s ownership stake in the club could be reduced. How It Works: If the Society misses a payment, more shares could be issued to Wild Sheep Sports (WSS), decreasing the Society’s ownership percentage (in fairness, Erik says this shouldn't be the case, but you'll note the use of the word "shouldn't" rather than "wouldn't". Besides, I don't think a claim made on a football forum would stand up in court if he decided to enact this option. Financial Penalties: What Could Happen: The Society might have to pay additional fees or interest. How It Works: The agreement could include a clause that charges interest or fixed penalties for missed payments, increasing the amount the Society owes. Reduction of Benefits: What Could Happen: The Society could lose certain privileges. How It Works: Benefits like voting rights on certain issues or access to club facilities might be reduced or suspended until the missed payments are made. Acceleration Clause: What Could Happen: The Society could be required to pay the remaining balance immediately. How It Works: Missing one payment could trigger a requirement to pay all remaining committed funds upfront. Loss of Buyback Option: What Could Happen: The Society could lose the option to buy back shares. How It Works: If the Society fails to meet financial commitments, they might forfeit the option to buy back shares from WSS. Or, it could even be the following, which is the one I'm particularly concerned about outside of the first option: Impact on Existing Loan: What Could Happen: The £868,000 loan from the Society to the club could be affected. Well, the £434,000 that would remain after 50% of the original amount is converted into shares to help the Well Society maintain a 50.1% majority shareholding in a football club that it would have previously held over 70% in. How It Works: Debt Forgiveness Negotiation: If the Society fails to meet its financial commitments, the club could negotiate to have the loan forgiven in exchange for the Society being forgiven for not making its required payments. It should be mentioned at this point that the Well Society loan is currently secured against the stadium. And more importantly, the ground it sits on. All of a sudden that "clean balance sheet" looks really attractive. Why? For the following reasons: Release of Security: What Happens: If the loan is forgiven, the security (the stadium) associated with the loan would be released. This means the stadium would no longer be collateral for the debt since the debt itself would be eliminated. Implication: Without the loan, the club would own the stadium free and clear of that specific debt obligation. Potential Increased Control for Wild Sheep Sports: Scenario: If Wild Sheep Sports becomes the majority shareholder, and the loan is forgiven, they could have increased control over the club’s assets, including the stadium. Implication: WSS, as the majority shareholder, would have significant influence over decisions regarding the stadium, including the possibility of selling it. Now, it might be the case that none of the above would apply. Or, indeed, any or a combination of the above could apply. We don't know, because no one is telling us. All we know is that Wild Sheep Sports is extremely eager to eliminate the loan the club has from the Well Society. As soon as a vote to approve Barmack's offer happens the loan is reduced immediately by 50%. Which leaves only 50% to get out the way. Now, I could be wrong. I just wonder if the information on those penalties will be provided in good time for the membership to scrutinise before voting?

I'm fairly sure it will get kicked into touch, but what has to be highlighted is how absolutely ludicrous this whole process has been. I've never seen anything like it in the business world.

I've noticed that many people are saying that if Barmack wins the vote, they will cancel their contributions to the Society. They feel that their funds would essentially be used to finance the day-to-day running of the club under the control of a millionaire American chairman. I understand their perspective and will likely do the same. However, I'm not sure that would disappoint Erik too much, despite what he says. There's the £1.35 million commitment from the Society built into his plan for a reason. I personally believe that much of it is based on him guessing the Society won't be able to meet those numbers, which would effectively cause some sort of forfeit accompanied by penalties. I've asked numerous times what those penalties will be, but have received no concrete answers. I also find his desire to remove the loan that is, I believe, secured against the stadium very interesting. Would I be surprised if the money to cover any shortfall in Society contributions over the six years is claimed via the loan being waived? I would not.