steelboy

At the start of the Well Society they bought 5% of the club for £250,000. It seems to have reduced greatly in value since then.....

This is what they told me. It works out as £9.32 a share. They sold them very cheap. The total issued share capital of £1 Ordinary Shares is £300,831 The Society initially held 221,815 shares ( 73.7% ). Shares were sold from around November 2017 for over 1 year. The sale was well advertised and over 250 fans made a purchase. 6,016 shares were sold for a total of £56,125. That left the Society with 215,799 shares ( 71.7% )

@StAndrew7 Since you are a private shareholder can you ask the club for the price per share in the proposed annual share subscription for (i) Erik Barmack (ii) private shareholders (iii) the Well Society. Cheers The arithmetic on this suggests that private shareholders will actually have the option to increase their shareholding and that the Well Society could go even lower than 22%.

I've just reread the proposal and noticed this. Basically the 46% shareholding offer to the Well Society is only a potential maximum outcome and it could actually go as low as 22% if this offer to private shareholders is fully taken up. We are being absolutely fucking scammed. McMahon and Dickie are undervaluing the club so they can buy up more shares dirt cheap. @David Get this on P&B. 4 Other shareholders will have the right to subscribe for their pro rata amount each year eg if a shareholder owns 1% at present, they will be entitled to subscribe for 1% of the new shares issued. If they do that, it will reduce the amounts the WS need to subscribe and the number of shares they receive on that share issue.

Just because the members voted for a vague proposal about investment that would give up fan ownership doesn't mean the board should be putting forward a ridiculous offer where we are paying £1.8 million to give our shareholding away and getting nothing in return. The deal is the equivalent of having a £160,000 house and someone comes to your door and says they'll take a half share in the house for free but don't worry they'll put in 40 grand to build an extension. Oh aye and you need to put 35 grand towards that as well. And they are in total control of how the money is spent. It sounds like a wind up but this is the offer the club board are recommending.

Aye you registered on the first day the site was created then started posting every day 15 years later as soon as Barmack appeared on the scene. Totally normal account.

It's just more of the usual throwing accusations at the Society while trying to derail any talk about Barmack's game. She's been playing a stupid game since January DM'ing most of the regular posters on the board and posting constant sob stories about injuries, hospital stays and being skint. Very strange behaviour from a new poster who appeared right at the time of the bid.

He's not going to agree to the Well Society keeping 51% because he wants control over the club's finances. It's clear reading his post on P&B that he want to use the club to develop AI marketing tools and the money he puts in is basically going to be invested into doing that. There's a good chance the money the Well Society puts in will also go towards paying for that. Also the Well Society shouldn't be paying a penny to have their shareholding reduced. That's the stupidest part of the proposal. We pay so he can take over. The fact that he is even suggesting it tells you he's not trustworthy. At the moment we have a fan model which gives us long term security over our vital assets and has over 7 years delivered an overall profit, financial stability, stadium improvements and an increasing player budget. To give up that to hand control to guy with no experience of business in the UK or Scotland, no experience in football and who's primary interest is Artificial Intelligence marketing tools which we are to be the guinea pig for is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MENTAL. This is only has a chance because of the way it's being framed. The Well Society's track record seems to have been completely discarded and there is an impossible demand being made to find new ways to finance the club. Barmack who appeared on the scene 6 months ago seems to be considered as trustworthy as our democratic fans group with 3000 members. Even the Society board can't make their own case without talking about how great a guy Barmack is which is pathetic. Ordinary working people generally like to find solutions via compromise. Rich people don't as we have seen with Barmack saying he won't move on valuation. The danger we are facing here is people deciding that the reasonable thing to do will be to go with Barmack's second offer as a compromise in some misguided sense of fairness and finding a middle ground.

It's questionable whether there is. Have the Society taken legal advice on whether it's appropriate to hold this vote? If they haven't then the board members are not taking their responsibilities seriously. I'll hopefully get an answer for this next week. I've asked a question about the Society valuation of the shareholding by email and on here. No answer yet which is fair enough as it's a busy period but to me it's a simple question and one that the Society board should have been prepared for prior to all this going public on Monday. As I've said and a few other have also pointed out it's a bad sign that we have Society board members complaining about the timing of a Society vote. If they didn't chose the timeframe who did?

We have sign Koutroumbis. In the last 4 games he played his team conceded 23 goals. Not exactly encouraging. Also we now have four right sided centre backs none of whom are more than 6 feet tall. Great planning from Kettlewell.

wrong thread

Firstly we are one of very few clubs to operate at a profit since the Well Society so we are financed just fine. During the same period our budgets have increased significantly as well: in 2019 the club spent £4m on wages, now it's up to £5m. The idea we need a new financial model is McMahon's lies to get the club out of the hands of the fans. Secondly what kind of adjustments would it take to get you to vote for Barmack?

The society has a constitution that needs to be changed before any votes which conflict with it can enacted. For example if society members voted to disperse all funds to the members it still couldn't happen due to the society constitution and laws concerning Industrial and Provident Societies.

First of all I'm questioning the legality of voting on a false prospectus. That has to be investigated. Secondly I'm asking if and when we are going to be informed of the Society board's valuation of our shareholding. Simple questions which should be easy to answer.

It is a polarity. It's continuing fan ownership Vs end fan ownership. That's what all this is about.

It's worth what someone is willing to pay for it is only as valid as it's worth what we're willing to sell it for. And selling isn't even in the constitution. The Well Society board statement said the club was hugely undervalued so they obviously have a valuation in mind. Let's hear it.

On this point just because two parties agree to something doesn't make it legal. The valuation is key and if they don't fight on that then I think we will lose fan ownership. Sometimes boats have to be rocked. I'll say again I was delighted with the response earlier in the week but accepting McMahon and Barmack's terms and timescale is playing into their hands.

Well I am member of the society. It seems clear to me that if the board feels the deal undervalues the assets by several million pounds that it's wrong to put it to a vote. They should be seeking legal advice on this matter. Also they should already have put out their own valuation and highlighted exactly by how much McMahon is ripping us off. I fully expected this was coming but after reading that interview I'm not convinced.

Also why are you complaining about the time frame of the vote? Surely the Society board decides when the Society votes? Has someone else decided?

If the Society board put this to a vote with the lower valuation they have defacto accepted the legitimaticy of the valuation.

So if the valuation is wrong why are they allowing a dishonest prospectus to be voted on? Is that legal? When are they going to present the Society's own valuation of the shareholding?

Are you going to accept the Executive Board's valuation? By the sounds of that you are which is highly disappointing.

Obviously you don't want every decision to have to go through two boards so the Well Society reps on the club board need to be able to use personal judgement on ordinary club business. However if it's an issue which is in conflict with The Well Society constitution such as ending fan ownership then they should 100% be going to the Well Society board to get an agreed position.

Still no word from Feeley or Dickie as to why they believe it's in the interest of Society members to pay out £1.8m to have our shareholding reduced by 1/3rd to 46%. You would think if you were going to vote to give over a million pounds of other people's money away you might explain what the benefits are.

@dennyc contacted the Society about this and they told him that Companies House won't let the Well Society be listed as a person of significant control. However if you look at St Mirren's listing their fan ownership group and the charity are both listed as having significant control despite holding fewer shares than the Well Society. I also contacted the Society about the decision to sell shares to go below the 75% threshold and they told me that they never held 75%+ at any time despite that being listed on the Companies House website.