tottenmfc

Going off-track a bit here, but gullible stupid people caused these things by being gullible and stupid. People pointing this out as opposed to trying to reason with them makes no difference whatsoever. They only believe their gullible stupid echo chamber and social media has only made this 1000x worse than it was previously. I'm not sure this applies to the MFC vote situation quite so much but there are definitely a fair few piping up on social media who fall into this category.

Putting aside whether people are stupid or not, surely the only question to be answered here is "Is the Barmack deal good for MFC?". If you believe the answer is yes (which can only really be based on blind faith in a guy with zero experience in running a sports team at this point) then you vote in favour, if you don't think it is then you vote against. You don't have to be "blown away" by the WS proposal. The fact is that the status quo has allowed the club to run on a stable footing for years and delivered fairly decent on-field performance and a modest profit over that period. The refresh of the WS suggests they will be more proactive in looking to improve things further, but of course there are no guarantees that will happen. My concern is that people in favour of the proposal have simply heard "Netflix", thought about Wrexham, and that's enough for them. No amount of reason is going to change that unfortunately. Comments along the lines of "we can't afford to knock-back £2m" also suggest a lack of understanding of the actual proposal and of the current situation of the club, despite the Club Board themselves stating we are financially stable. Not everyone can or will be persuaded by reason or logic unfortunately.

Having had a quick scan through this, other than the docuseries thing and more buzzwords about "Digital Content Expansion", all of these proposals seem like they would be achievable without giving this character almost 50% of the club, while depleting the WS funds significantly. As has been stated several times, the financials of this deal simply make no sense whatsoever. If he was proposing this and sticking in say £1m for a 20% stake (with the WS not having to match him) then I could maybe live with it, but the terms being offered are mental. The reference to Caley Braves fills me with dread also. They're a soulless pointless amateur club who have somehow managed to part some fools from their cash online. Any reference to them is a red flag for me. Edit: This also doesn't clear-up how these characters expect to see a return on their investment. Despite the blatant lie about having "a passion for the club", they're not doing it out the kindness of their heart, and I doubt any docuseries is going to be lucrative enough to cover their outlay, so where do they get a return from? Is it based on the fact there are assets in excess of the valuation placed on the club that they can strip worst case scenario? Or is the plan to simply boost revenue a bit, get the balance sheet looking a bit healthier, reduce the WS reserves to the point they can't provide a "safety net" for the club then look to sell on after 6 years at a profit?

I was just quoting from the original investment update on the website. I did wonder whether these "safeguards" they listed were actually going to be backed up with anything that is legally binding.

A very good point and one I wasn't actually aware of. If it is the case that any control over Fir Park is linked to the loan, then this seems even more sketchy. There is mention of "safeguards" that "the club cannot take on any external debt" and that "no assets, ground etc, can be sold" - what isn't entirely clear is whether this is just during the 6 year term or is ongoing, but I would read it as being linked to the 6 year "locked box" period they refer to. If these "safeguards" are just for the 6 years and the charge held by the WS no longer exists if the loan is repaid then at that point there is nothing to stop debt being taken on and a mortgage taken out on Fir Park.

Another point I didn't mention in my earlier post. This idea that if we see player sales of over £2m, 30% is set aside in an account that the Well Society can use towards the call option after 2 years, doesn't make a lot of sense either. As things stand currently, if the club were to realise sales of £2m+ (not entirely far fetched at the moment), would they not then pay the WS back the loan amount in full, given it will essentially be a "rainy day" pot for the club anyway and get the loan off the balance sheet? In that scenario, the club is better off and the WS is better positioned to deal with any of these nightmare scenarios that may happen one day (i.e. relegation / no cup run / never selling a player again). Yet the WS having access to 30% of anything over £2m in return for putting in £1.35m over 6 years and writing off half the loan is somehow being portrayed as a benefit to fans.

Exactly this. I remember when the Well Society was set-up people were adamant that they didn't want "unqualified" fans making decisions on every aspect of the club, and rightly this was never the intention. Now this random American has appeared however, these same "unqualified" fans are expected to pull together a business plan for the club that will see an improvement on and off the park, while the same is not expected of said American. It just proves to me that a brass neck and an overinflated sense of importance is enough to convince a significant number of people (including apparently the Motherwell FC Board) that you are some sort of business guru.

The problem is that I think people against the proposal are quite clearly able to identify at least one clear reason why they have arrived at their view. I have yet to see anyone who supports the proposal offer anything factual that supports that view. It seems very much like they've heard "Netflix" and that's enough. The club board themselves have stated we are not in some dire financial situation and have shown the figures that demonstrate the club is making a (modest) profit over the medium / long term. There will clearly be fluctuations year-to-year in there but that is to be expected in most businesses. The fans I have seen in favour of the proposal also seem to suggest it is on the Well Society to improve the commercial side of things for the club, which is not the case. The club has people in place who are paid a salary for that very purpose. All I would expect any proposal from the Well Society to address would be how they believe they can build up more of a buffer to cover short-term shortfalls or assist with certain capital expenditure (likely to be facilities etc.). As a slight aside, the EB plan reminds me in many ways of a South Park episode that featured the Underpants Gnomes... perhaps a niche reference there though...

I don't often post on here but feel compelled to put down my thoughts on this somewhere to see if I'm missing something. So here are my thoughts (apologies, it's a long one): There seems to be a view from some that the club are in some dire situation and need to accept any investment we can get. This simply isn't the case as far as I can see and even if it was we could likely sell Miller and/or Bair this week and be secure financially. Given our turnover, we will always be a club running close to breakeven over the longer term and like most clubs in Scotland part of our business model will involve selling players on at a profit. There is nothing concrete in the proposed deal that suggests any of this will change. The financials of the deal from an existing shareholder perspective simply don't make sense, even with the revised terms. The valuation placed on the club of £4m can be debated but taking that as acceptable, the WS currently owns 71% of the shares (71% x £4m = £2.84m). At the end of this 6 year deal the WS own 50.1% and Wild Sheep Sports owns 47% but during this period, the WS has to invest an additional £1.35m and Wild Sheep Sports invests £1.95m. So even if at the end of the term, the club has made no progress and retains the £4m valuation, (ignoring the impact of inflation etc.) Wild Sheep Sports have a holding worth £1.88m from a total investment of £1.95m, while the WS have invested £1.35m and written off half of the loan given to the club and seen their holding go from a value of £2.84m to £2.004m. Swap out the WS for an individual investor and where is the incentive for them to accept these terms? Would an individual not simply say, if you want the club, front up the £2.84m and you can buy my shares (assuming they agreed with the £4m valuation)? Point two becomes even more ridiculous when you look at what Wild Sheep Sports get from day 1. They invest £350k, hold 8% of shares but get 3 board members (same as the WS) and have a deciding vote where there is a 4-4 tie, meanwhile should there be a requirement to plug any shortfall in the finances, the WS is still on the hook for that. In addition, if Wild Sheep Sports turn out to be a shambles and the WS want rid of them, they basically just walk away with their money back in 2 years and the only losers are the club and the WS. I struggle to believe that any other company would accept an 8% shareholder having this level of influence with such a low level of risk. Wild Sheep Sports suggest they can add value but have provided no actual details of their plans or any figures / targets. I appreciate you wouldn't share all the granular detail but simply throwing out buzzwords about "engagement" / "interaction" or whatever it is, along with teasing some documentary suggestion means absolutely nothing. There is also no suggestion of how they plan to generate a return from their investment - the obvious assumption is that they hope to increase the value of the club and sell their holding after 6 years and/or start paying dividends. Even if they did enhance the financials of the club, the valuation of the club would have to more than double for the WS to maintain the value of their holding and break even (again ignoring inflation) from their investment (current £2.84m holding + £1.35m investment = £4.19m with a 50.1% = a valuation of £8.36m) - this seems extremely unlikely. A lot of noise is being made by a number of fans suggesting that the WS have to provide some sort of counter proposal, otherwise this should automatically be accepted, which again makes no sense. This isn't like a general election where both parties put forward a manifesto and you pick the one you like. The WS is the majority shareholder currently and is the status quo, while the Wild Sheep Sports proposal is the alternative. The question is simply is the alternative an improvement on the status quo? Given the above points I would suggest this is a deal that would never see the light of day in any other business, and it seems blatantly obvious to me that the status quo, which has delivered modest profits for the club over the long term and kept us competitive in the top flight, is the much better option.

On your point regarding strikers, who’s to say at this point that Johnson isn’t the ‘striker of quality’ you’re looking for. His record is comparable to Moult’s before he signed for us and you still seem to be sore about us selling him... The Sammon signing seemed strange to me but I can only assume he was available at a relatively low cost and at worst he is definitely better cover than what we had last season. The number of midfielders does seem strange at the moment but there’s still time for any / all or Bigi, Cadden and Campbell to be off... the meltdown on here would be incredible were that to happen, even with weeks left before our transfer deadline.

If people are going to go into meltdown every time their team sells / loses one of their better players they should probably avoid supporting Motherwell (or any Scottish team for that matter).

Some people need to get a grip I think. Selling Kipre will not be the difference between us staying up or going down just like the possibility of losing to Hibs on Sunday with a bit of a depleted squad will not relegate us. There is a long season ahead with almost a month left to get players in. It's very likely the 'football' on offer this season won't be great again but we're a long way off being relegation fodder.

Already posted on the actual match thread but probably makes more sense here... 2 spare tickets going in the West Stand if anyone's interested?

I've ended up with 2 spare tickets for the West Stand if anyone's interested? Any Sellick fans sniffing about the forum need not apply.

Not that I have an issue with what was said, as I personally don't stalk the club's general manager online like some people seem to... but... he could have simply said nothing about potential future signings and left talking about the footballing side of the club to the 'football department'.