David

I know it may come across as cynical, but there's a better-than-average chance that his interactions over there are nothing more than a PR push to help create a friendly face for the business deal. I've seen similar tactics before. If such a tactic weren't used, he'd still be considered the evil millionaire from LA trying to snatch our club for a pittance. Now he's a "nice millionaire" who's taking time from his important and busy life to reach down and converse with the plebs. But hey, it seems to be working, so you can't fault him or his team.

That's true. I'm just saying that it likely won't actually be him. Companies I've worked with usually have a PR lead or a team of a few people running social media accounts, preparing statements, answering emails and dealing with all manner of comms for a CEO. Often because the CEO doesn't have the time, and also to ensure they don't accidentally say anything that could come back to bite them on the arse.

Oh, he's always going to claim that other clubs are "in the mix." It's a typical tactic used to put pressure on the selling party. If they believe the deal could be taken away and offered elsewhere, it sometimes helps to expedite proceedings. I seriously doubt that any club currently managed by a competent owner or board would entertain his offer. And while you are correct that we have been fan-owned for a while, the video released and the tone of the message from our club board always had the potential to act like "blood in the water" when there are sharks nearby.

In all honesty? I'm not even sure it is him. I'm more of the belief that it's a member of his team who helped put this deal together, or a PR person. Or maybe even both using the one account. In my experience, guys like him rarely have the time interact as much as he has.

On this particular deal? It really depends how the MOU is structured (assuming there is one), and how any NDA's involved are framed. It could be that the club and Society aren't legally allowed to discuss the intricate details of the deal. Barmack, for all that he's being active on P&B, isn't actually saying all that much of substance. I've been reading most of what he's posted, and the only takeaway that I've got from it all is that he's come to his valuation of our club by using a rough approach that involves what Newcastle United is worth and that he's trying hard to sell himself as an honest guy with our best interests at heart. Which may be true, by the way. I doubt it, though. In my experience of dealing with investors and VC over the past ten plus years I have found that these guys aren't coming in and burning through the one commodity that they treasure above all else, which is time, to pursue a deal where they don't get much upside. That's simply not how they work. I find it hard to believe he simply woke up six months ago and decided he wanted to work with the fan ownership group at a club he'd never heard of before, all to help said club consistently finish in the top six. There's an end game here. And that's not a bad thing in itself. But, I'd much rather work with an investor who lays it all out and says "This is what I'm proposing, and the reason for that is because the club will benefit in X way, and I'll benefit in Y way, then I can move on to the next investment opportunity a richer man, and leave you guys in a better position." Again, I'm only going by my experience, but when investors start talking about "enthusiasm," "working alongside ordinary supporters" and so forth, especially when that kind of language is used without an actual plan? It sets alarm bells off. At the risk of sounding like a bit of a prick, do fans really need to be able to under the technicalities of the following to know it's a bad deal? The plan that has been suggested at the moment, from what I can see, basically consists of the following: Barmack "invests" £1.95 million over six years. For this, he will receive 49% ownership, with 8% ownership from the beginning The Well Society has to invest £1.35 million over six years. For this, we will lose 25% of our shares. Barmack also becomes Chairman with the deciding vote in any tie. So, he invests £1.95 million to see an increase in shareholding to the tune of 49%, while we, the fans, invest an additional £1.35 million to lose 25% of our shareholding. I've never been involved in any business deal where that kind of thing is suggested. Ever. Why? Because it's ridiculous. In any normal business setting, it would be laughed out of the room, and the party suggesting it would be roundly ridiculed. Oh, and on top of the above, we also need to agree to write off 50% of our loan to the club to the tune of £434,000. That is money that fans, including pensioners and people who are not well off, have paid to the Society in good faith, by the way. Almost half a million pounds of our money, just written off. Gone. So, with all of that said, what do we get in return? A multi-page business plan that shows why we need him on board? An exciting vision of the future under his chairmanship? No. We get talk of "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects rather than short-term player acquisitions" and incredibly vague chit-chat about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence." Do you want to know what I think? I think that the above would be considered derisory by any competent board in the world of business. But, Barmack has found a well-run entity that's involved in a league that is looking at an uptick in TV and sponsorship money coming over the next five or so years and has realised it's "fan-run." Which, in the mind of an investor and businessman from Los Angeles, as the club board keep describing him, means that it's run by simple folks who won't understand all the technicalities and who, in his likely view, are simply too fucking stupid to understand exactly what all this means. He wants the club on the cheap, and not only that, he wants us to actually pay for much of it. If you add in the money The Society would be losing on top of the contributions we'd need to make, it would actually mean that our total financial contribution over the six years would be £1,784,000 for the privilege of losing 25% of our shares, while he contributes £166,000 more than us over the same period for an increase in 48% of shareholding. You want an honest assessment? He thinks we're mugs. And sadly, going by some of the responses I've seen, he's correct to an extent. I always feared that while fan ownership is a good thing, it does leave us open to business predators who simply see an asset that is owned by a large group of people who, for the most part, aren't business-savvy. As he said today on P&B: "By the way, I think the offer has a better chance than many of you do -- if you follow politics closely, as I do, you can see examples on Twitter and message boards of a block that clearly don't like a proposal or politician, and are certain that their points are unanimous, only to see the quieter side of a voting block feel differently. As one touch-point, there was a poll on Twitter about our offer, and I believe it was 30 for / 70 against, and I think you have to consider a bit who's voting on a Twitter poll to realize that the fan-base might be more divided than this thread suggests. So, I'm not throwing in the towel." You're damn right he's not throwing in the towel. This could be one of the more lucrative deals he makes in years. Not because the club generates large sums of money but because he's basically securing a top-flight football club for less than the price of a three-bed house in Wishaw. I don't agree. The reason why he's pushing for this deal with us is because of the decision-makers and structure of the club. Could you imagine him going to someone like Roy MacGregor with an offer like this? Or even better, let's send him round to speak to Anne Budge and Hearts with a similar offer. So no, he knows that if he went to another club that was owned and run by someone from the actual business and investment world, he'd get laughed out of the building.

Something worth remembering is that this fan ownership thing was relatively new when we implemented it at the club. So, there's still a lot to tighten up and rules to be revised I'd guess. This is the first real "situation" that we've faced since implementation, and I think if we deal with it correctly we can come out the other side better for it.

To be fair to the boards of both entities, they're not really in the same position as he is. He's an individual who's trying to rescue a deal that has an incredible upside for him and his business. The boards of both club and Society can't really come out on a public internet forum and start chatting away. It doesn't work like that with such entities.

I believe any improved offer would not significantly differ in terms of the finances on the table, as I don't think he is the type of buyer who has access to the substantial funds some supporters hoped for to make us competitive with the likes of Kilmarnock, Dundee, or St Johnstone. His financial contribution essentially amounted to an additional £300,000 per year, did it not? That is not going to go very far, so unless he substantially increases the financial terms, I do not see how he could improve the offer. The only viable option is the same offer, but with the Society's holdings not dropping below 51%, and I suspect he would not be agreeable to that.

Wouldn't it be more insightful if the actual club board made their views known about the offer and why they voted to unanimously accept it? I'd be interested in knowing their reasoning. Thus far, we've had radio silence on the matter. Oh, that's precisely the issue. I've encountered very few opinions suggesting that retaining fan ownership is the main concern here. It's not. That matter appears to have been set aside for the time being, with the seemingly absurd terms of the offer being placed at the forefront. If this were a credible and fair offer that also saw the Society's percentage drop below 51%, there would be nowhere near as much vitriol. Certainly, there would be robust discussion on the merits of the offer weighed against retaining fan ownership, but I've seen virtually none of that. The focus is entirely on how the club board could have the audacity to even suggest approving such an offer. I have had extensive discussions with Society board members over recent months, and this is most certainly not the case. Would they require significant persuasion to relinquish fan control? Absolutely. However, nothing is off the table if the right offer is made. What we are witnessing here is a response to an utterly ludicrous offer and frustration directed towards a club board that has attempted to force it through. Absolutely. The main issue is that the Society had two board members on the club board who did not actually believe in the very ethos of the Society itself, which is absurd. I have absolutely nothing against the two individuals who voted in favour of this offer at club level, and the other who voted in favour at Society board level, but the fact is, this is a Society board. If you do not believe in and wish to represent the Society, you have no place being there. For me, the bigger issue now is not the ridiculous Barmack offer. That should never be approved in its current form; it is laughable. The bigger issue is the vacancies on the Society board, and more importantly, the vacancies on the club board that should be filled by individuals who represent us. This needs to be addressed swiftly, because I have absolutely no faith in the current club board as it stands, which, oddly enough, still includes the two individuals who hold the Society seats, despite one of them having already resigned from their position at Society level.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. By my reckoning, and I could be mistaken, the Society representatives on the club board are there to convey the wishes of the Well Society board, which the wider membership elected to represent them. Now, that doesn't mean that any investment offer can be decided by the Society board itself, but surely the board is able to vote among themselves to decide upon a recommendation? And that recommendation is then taken to the club board and conveyed? If the hastily assembled online poll (and that's what it really was), which was cleverly worded and vague enough to have many people thinking, "well, I'll vote yes because maybe a Saudi Prince will arrive and want to buy us, and I want that to be considered," was binding insofar as the board itself having to approve any and all offers based on the result of it, then I'd say we've all been deceived to some extent. For me, the board of the Society, who are privy to many details that the wider membership are not, should have the power to make a recommendation, and the majority recommendation of the Society board should be conveyed by the Society representatives on the club board.

If anything has come of this sorry debacle, it surely is that the Society needs some protocols in place for dealing with potential investment or interested parties in the club? The first priority must be a clarification of the voting structure and responsibilities of those Well Society board members who are elected to represent the Society on the club board. Any vote of the type we've just witnessed must follow a clear protocol, along the lines of: The Society board should first discuss the matter internally and hold an internal vote among its board members. The Society representatives on the club board must then carry the result of that internal vote to the club board and vote accordingly. They cannot be permitted to vote based on their personal opinions. If they wish to do so, they should run for the club board independently of the Society. They cannot use the Well Society seats on the board to push their own agendas. Also, there must be some clear boundaries regarding potential investments or buyouts from external sources. Firstly, an agreed valuation of the club, accepted by both the club board and the Society board, should be established and reviewed annually. Any interested parties must meet this valuation before any offer is considered seriously. Parameters should be decided upon that investors must meet for the Society board to consider relinquishing control of the club. We cannot endure this prolonged process every time someone expresses an interest in investing. For instance, any offer to buy the club in its entirety for the agreed valuation should prompt a discussion about relinquishing control of the club, involving both the Society board and the wider membership via a vote. In my opinion, Barmack's offer should never have progressed to a membership-wide vote, as it did not meet any reasonable criteria that would justify replacing fan ownership. The absence of these protocols, or something similar, has led to the current situation where the fan ownership group board votes against a proposal while their representatives on the club board vote in favour of it, leading to their resignation. Meanwhile, a potential investor attempts to gain support on a Scottish Football forum. The entire scenario would be laughable if it did not have such serious consequences for the club. Now we're in a situation where the Society board looks like it will lose three (two confirmed) members, and the club board has lost the two society representatives. Now, we need to look at Society board elections to fill those spaces and then look at who will represent the society on the club board. All while Erik Barmack is sitting in the background waiting on word about his offer.

Excellent point. It is yet another example of how backward things are at present. I believe the Well Society representatives on the board view themselves more as club board members who relay information to the Society board, rather than actual Society board members on the club board to represent the wishes of the Society. In my opinion, they should have consulted with the Society board at large, then taken that vote outcome to the club board and voted accordingly, which would clearly have been to vote against the Barmack proposal in its current form.

If you do, make sure to read the content posted by Vietnam91. Whoever that is, they're bang on the money and posting some excellent insight.

Given that the club board voted unanimously in favour of the deal, it is reasonable to assume that Caldwell, Lindsay, and McMahon supported it. The first two may not have had an actual vote, but I would wager they were in favour for the club to use the term "unanimous." That is their right. They can vote as they see fit. The issue arises with Feely and Dickie. I understand their positions on the club board are as representatives of the Society, so by voting in favour of effectively ending the Well Society's control of the club, they have voted against the principles of the organisation they are supposed to represent. Moving forward, I believe the Society should seek to have them removed from the club board and replaced with two other representatives. Those on the current Well Society board who are interested should make themselves known, and the members can vote on who we wish to represent us at the club level. We also need to replace the three individuals on the Society board who voted against maintaining Well Society control of the club. Their positions have become untenable, as two of the three have already admitted.

Who is actually on the board now? Just McMahon, Dickie and Feely? EDIT: Lindsay and Caldwell were recently added I see. I'm guessing that they also agreed that Barmack's proposal was worth backing.

Yes, but there's a difference between "an alternative plan to outside investment" and them creating "an alternative plan to bring in outside investment" which is what I've seen a lot of people saying. The general view has been that if we don't want Barmack's deal, the Society need to find a way to match that deal elsewhere. The Society is and always will be (I hope!) focused on ways we can operate as a fan-owned club. And in all honesty, there's a ton that could be done to improve how we operate.

The Society's number one concern is making sure that they have the funds needed if things under fan ownership go pear-shaped as has been described in the worst-case scenario. Again, I've said it before, but the Society cannot actually create and implement a plan that would bring in outside investment. I'm sure there are certain legal hurdles that must be crossed by any entity that goes down the route of engaging with international investors and striking investment contracts and MOU's. That kind of thing has to come from the club itself, and the board, led by the CEO. What the Society can do is look at alternative ways to make the club more appealing to certain groups and individuals, and that is something I know for a fact they have been working on. But again, somewhere in all of this we need to be asking what the actual club itself has been doing?

The BBC are simply after clicks. Nothing more. They don't even get the players on our team's names right sometimes. The Well Society can create a plan that improves the workings of the Society itself, but even if it came up with the best plan to draw investment that the footballing world has ever seen, they're not ideally placed to enact that. It all comes down to the actual board of the club, and the CEO. Those individuals are being paid (or should be getting paid) to do that job. Not the people who give up their free time to help run the Well Society. As an aside, if I was on the board of the Well Society and we came up with the plan for investment and for taking the club forward, I'd be looking to be more involved in the implementation of that plan and the running of the club. It's easy to forget sometimes, but the club board is answerable to the Society. Not the other way around.

And what if they don't come up with a proposal that would see us bring in an extra few million pounds?

What about those of us who aren't keen on the Barmack proposal, but who instead believe we should be expecting more from our board and CEO? I'm not so sure about that. The resignations have come about because the individuals involved voted in favour of reducing the Society to less than 51%, which means essentially putting an end to fan ownership. If they believe that, then they shouldn't really be on the board of the Society.

This is absolutely key for me. Regardless of money from outside sources, we simply cannot escape the fact that in order to continue as a well-run club, we need to operate within our means.

They can certainly assist the current club board where possible. However, the responsibility clearly lies with the well-paid individuals who are experienced in such matters to actually do their job. Our new CEO hasn't been in the position for long. I would be more than happy to continue as we are and see what ideas and plans he has (why not set a date of July 1st for his plan?) Despite some reports to the contrary, we're not heading towards disaster without an additional £300,000 a year. You wouldn't think so with the amount of chat about "pressure" on the Society board. What about the pressure on the CEO and the club board to actually do the job?

That's how investment works, though. Nothing is a sure thing. The bigger question here is, is there interest in a club in Scottish football? For me, if the right kind of investor is approached, the answer is yes. It just takes a bit of "out the box" thinking. However, none of that should involve someone coming in and expecting to be given overall control. Or to have the Well Society holdings diluted below 51%. There's a ton of things that can be tightened up and changed on that side of things for sure. That's where I hope to see the current CEO step up and make some changes.

With recent resignations there will be places available on the board. Why don't you run and get the job done?

Is it, though? As others have mentioned, is it really the responsibility of a group of volunteers to create an investment plan for a million-pound business? Doesn't some of the responsibility for that lie with the CEO of the company? You know, the person who's being well paid to do that job? Or even the Chairman? Or is it a case of fans sitting back and saying, "Well, the club and board have voted in favour of the current offer from Barmack. Now it's up to the Society volunteers to better it, or we go with the sub-standard first offer"? Here's an idea. Why not hold the board of the club and the new CEO accountable for doing their jobs? The fact that they proudly voted in favour of recommending the current offer is alarming, to say the least. Here's a question. If the Society somehow came up with a way to raise an extra few million pounds for the club, do we want the individuals who saw fit to recommend the current offer from Barmack being in charge of how that money is spent? Sorry, but for me, this isn't on the Society. This is on the board. If they honestly believe this offer is as good as it's going to get for a club like ours, then we really need to be asking questions about their suitability for the roles they're in.