Club AGM

[grizzlyg]

36 minutes ago, Jay said:

Great post mate - just wanted to reiterate this point. There's essentially no status quo option, there's the two investment options as well as the Society undertaking its own study & producing its own strategy, while simultaneously rolling out workstreams to target five key areas (communications, fundraising, membership, governance & events - more information should be shared with members in tomorrow's newsletter). I think we can all agree that there's a ceiling to the kind of growth & income the Society can generate, and what that is is clearly open to debate, but there is a refreshed desire to seriously looking at reaching that ceiling going forward, and, thanks to the board's renewed makeup, there's a majority of folk on there now keen to make sure that happens.

No Status Quo option?  I just hope that doesn't lead to relegation and we go Down Down!!...... sorry folks 😜😜

[StAndrew7]

30 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Just read St Andrews7's update. That is concerning, and underlines that time is of the essence. An interesting option from the Well Society, and I'd like to hear more about that. If fans want to go down that route, they have to take more individual responsibility ie its not my responsibility its the Society's.  

I think this is the crux of it; as I said, I'm not a Society member currently but hold private shares. I'm now considering joining but would like to hear more about what the Society has planned to enhance its role within the club. Fan involvement, engagement and getting away from the general malaise around the club will be crucial to ensuring it works.

Derek Weir raised a point re: Hearts. With their fan ownership model (20,000+(?!) members can't remember what he said) and their benefactor (I forget his name), they've invested £25million in their squad in the last 3 years. We are obviously never going to get a membership of that order - it does demonstrate the significance of the challenge that faces the club and the Society.

[santheman]

Could the club do some kind of non voting share issue where you can buy as many shares as your budget allows.

I seem to remember some lower league Spanish team did something similar a few years ago and it went worldwide and raised something like half a million euros.

There must have been loads of collectors/football nerds who seemed to be quite happy to shell out 20 quid or so for the privilege of having a framed share certificate on the wall of their man cave.

No idea if it would be feasible or break any SFA rules or am I just talking pish.

 

I'd buy some.

[dennyc]

Thanks StAndrew's7. A much needed update of where we are currently at. Lots to digest and ponder.

Initially my thoughts are in line with a good few in that the status quo is not really a long term option. So one way or another things will change whilst at the same time providing required investment.

Couple of points struck me.

1. If I understand correctly, no investment would be secured by charges over Club assets such as Fir Park or Guarantees that would put the existence of MFC at increased risk. For me that stipulation is essential in any Agreement that is entered into. To a degree that protects from an investor simply pulling the plug, taking priority in the realisation of Assets and walking away with no loss incurred. They would basically be in the same boat as Shareholders although perhaps on a Preferred basis? So less likely to walk away. For that reason I understand why a major new investor would want a controlling interest.

2. It was news to me, but makes perfect sense, that the Club has to demonstrate to Auditors and the Football Authorities that it has sufficient funding to cover the following 18 month period. Any Club folding mid season would raise all sorts of problems fixture wise. I assume that has been the case for some time and thankfully has not been an issue for us. looking to the future and without knowing how much is required or what the present Bank balance is,  I wonder if the Society could raise sufficient funds at short notice to demonstrate that safeguard, and to repeat that exercise on a regular basis if need be.

From what we have heard for some time, finances are tight and indicators on and off the field support that position. The Club Board have openly accepted that further investment is required if we are to continue at our current level and are doing their best to resolve matters, whilst respecting the ethos of the Well Society. I accept that Communication might have been better but I would think that there are confidentiality issues that must be respected, particularly during ongoing discussions. In truth I am surprised that we were told as much as we were last night. It is good news though that parties are seriously interested enough to enter into discussions. I was not sure that would be the case.

One question I do have. If the WS members voted to accept a minority shareholding, would the WS continue to ingather funds and would those funds be protected and separate from Club finances? Available only as emergency fund as I believe was the original intention way back then. Not for day to day outgoings.

 

 

[Kmcalpin]

24 minutes ago, santheman said:

Could the club do some kind of non voting share issue where you can buy as many shares as your budget allows.

I think the club already has such shares; there was an issue some years ago. They're called preference shares. 

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, dennyc said:

2. It was news to me, but makes perfect sense, that the Club has to demonstrate to Auditors and the Football Authorities that it has sufficient funding to cover the following 18 month period. Any Club folding mid season would raise all sorts of problems fixture wise. I assume that has been the case for some time and thankfully has not been an issue for us. looking to the future and without knowing how much is required or what the present Bank balance is,  I wonder if the Society could raise sufficient funds at short notice to demonstrate that safeguard, and to repeat that exercise on a regular basis if need be.

From what we have heard for some time, finances are tight and indicators on and off the field support that position. The Club Board have openly accepted that further investment is required if we are to continue at our current level and are doing their best to resolve matters, whilst respecting the ethos of the Well Society. I accept that Communication might have been better but I would think that there are confidentiality issues that must be respected, particularly during ongoing discussions. In truth I am surprised that we were told as much as we were last night. It is good news though that parties are seriously interested enough to enter into discussions. I was not sure that would be the case.

One question I do have. If the WS members voted to accept a minority shareholding, would the WS continue to ingather funds and would those funds be protected and separate from Club finances? Available only as emergency fund as I believe was the original intention way back then. Not for day to day outgoings.

On your second point I believe this is an SPFL requirement now, following issues with other clubs (Derek Weir mentioned Livingston I think). It makes complete sense. Essentially, if the sums remain the same, the Society will need to have anywhere from £750k-£1m in the bank in October to fund the potential shortfalls. Obviously that will depend on any player sales and other income between now and then (e.g. selling Lennon Miller for David Turnbull type cash). The directors reported last night that we should have a surplus of £500k at the end of this reporting year, with the Society on target for around £750k.

I'll leave the WS question for those more in the know ( @Jay ?), however I would imagine it would continue in its current form in some way, depending on the agreement with any investor. e.g. if there is a minority stake, the WS could have first refusal on investor's shares if they wish to sell etc.

The other thing that's worth mentioning that I forgot to ask about, is if the 50% level is purely the Society's shares, or if private shares held by those such as myself are included in that. If that's the case, that would mean that the Society's share would be less than 50%.

[Jay]

13 minutes ago, dennyc said:

One question I do have. If the WS members voted to accept a minority shareholding, would the WS continue to ingather funds and would those funds be protected and separate from Club finances? Available only as emergency fund as I believe was the original intention way back then. Not for day to day outgoings.

This is a really interesting question and one I've asked in previous weeks - what does the Well Society actually look like as a minority shareholder? Does it even exist, never mind continuing to gather funds? Would it lay in waiting, ready to take over again if things went south?

The main barrier I could see there is that, without the majority shareholding, the very reason for people to put their hard-earned money into the Society is no longer valid. I would expect a major crash in membership & income in that scenario, in which case the question then becomes whether it would make sense for the Society to even continue.

It's certainly a big question that needs a lot of thought, I think the actual investors themselves probably play a role in putting forward their own thoughts on the role of the Well Society, if any, in their "vision" of investment. Certainly, on a personal level, I'd likely have to give my own involvement consideration because I'm involved, and believe I've been tasked with being involved, to try & grow fan-ownership, rather than wind it up.

[dennyc]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

On your second point I believe this is an SPFL requirement now, following issues with other clubs (Derek Weir mentioned Livingston I think). It makes complete sense. Essentially, if the sums remain the same, the Society will need to have anywhere from £750k-£1m in the bank in October to fund the potential shortfalls. Obviously that will depend on any player sales and other income between now and then (e.g. selling Lennon Miller for David Turnbull type cash). The directors reported last night that we should have a surplus of £500k at the end of this reporting year, with the Society on target for around £750k.

I'll leave the WS question for those more in the know ( @Jay ?), however I would imagine it would continue in its current form in some way, depending on the agreement with any investor. e.g. if there is a minority stake, the WS could have first refusal on investor's shares if they wish to sell etc.

The other thing that's worth mentioning that I forgot to ask about, is if the 50% level is purely the Society's shares, or if private shares held by those such as myself are included in that. If that's the case, that would mean that the Society's share would be less than 50%.

Thanks again for placing some figures out there. helps us understand the overall situation. Much appreciated.

[dennyc]

3 minutes ago, Jay said:

This is a really interesting question and one I've asked in previous weeks - what does the Well Society actually look like as a minority shareholder? Does it even exist, never mind continuing to gather funds? Would it lay in waiting, ready to take over again if things went south?

The main barrier I could see there is that, without the majority shareholding, the very reason for people to put their hard-earned money into the Society is no longer valid. I would expect a major crash in membership & income in that scenario, in which case the question then becomes whether it would make sense for the Society to even continue.

It's certainly a big question that needs a lot of thought, I think the actual investors themselves probably play a role in putting forward their own thoughts on the role of the Well Society, if any, in their "vision" of investment. Certainly, on a personal level, I'd likely have to give my own involvement consideration because I'm involved, and believe I've been tasked with being involved, to try & grow fan-ownership, rather than wind it up.

Thanks Jay.

I bought into the WS at the outset on the basis that any funds ingathered were for emergency use only and would be provided to the Club on a short term loan basis. They would not be used for day to day funding. A lender of last resort when required. The intention being that all funds would be protected, grow and be available for rebuild if the ultimate disaster happened. Not sure that is how it operates currently but it is a model that might suit a fair few fans if/when things change.

[Jay]

3 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Thanks Jay.

I bought into the WS at the outset on the basis that any funds ingathered were for emergency use only and would be provided to the Club on a short term loan basis. They would not be used for day to day funding. A lender of last resort when required. The intention being that all funds would be protected, grow and be available for rebuild if the ultimate disaster happened. Not sure that is how it operates currently but it is a model that might suit a fair few fans if/when things change.

Just to clarify, that is essentially the model that the Society has returned to over the last couple of years. There was a period, when Les Hutchison was involved, where the model was required to change but since the end of that agreement, we have sat on the funds being generated which, as mentioned above, puts us on target for around £750,000 in the coffers. Essentially, that very much is back in line with the original idea of fundraising for emergency use, and we only now invest any of that cash in the club for very specific things that have A. Been asked of the Society, and B. There's good reason why the club cannot directly fund whatever it is.

Obviously, that may change again - the status quo doesn't work and part of the Society's strategy going forward may be the ambition of supplying the kind of investment in the club that's needed, similarly any investors would maybe have caveats on what the Society would be expected to do with its money.

[dennyc]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

Just to clarify, that is essentially the model that the Society has returned to over the last couple of years. There was a period, when Les Hutchison was involved, where the model was required to change but since the end of that agreement, we have sat on the funds being generated which, as mentioned above, puts us on target for around £750,000 in the coffers. Essentially, that very much is back in line with the original idea of fundraising for emergency use, and we only now invest any of that cash in the club for very specific things that have A. Been asked of the Society, and B. There's good reason why the club cannot directly fund whatever it is.

Obviously, that may change again - the status quo doesn't work and part of the Society's strategy going forward may be the ambition of supplying the kind of investment in the club that's needed, similarly any investors would maybe have caveats on what the Society would be expected to do with its money.

Thanks Jay. 

I am actually encouraged by what you have just said. I was extremely pissed off when Les had the operating model changed so Club access to Society funds was much simpler. From memory (correct me if wrong) that adjustment was made without referral to Society members and to my mind should never have been allowed. But he held all the cards I guess. Can I take it from your comments that any funding the Society provides is no longer on a Loan basis? Getting ahead of myself, but moving forward that might be something to consider. To protect fan contributions and continue to grow the emergency funds.

[Jay]

16 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Thanks Jay. 

I am actually encouraged by what you have just said. I was extremely pissed off when Les had the operating model changed so Club access to Society funds was much simpler. From memory (correct me if wrong) that adjustment was made without referral to Society members and to my mind should never have been allowed. But he held all the cards I guess. Can I take it from your comments that any funding the Society provides is no longer on a Loan basis? Getting ahead of myself, but moving forward that might be something to consider. To protect fan contributions and continue to grow the emergency funds.

It's essentially a bit of blend. If there's a specific thing that the Society is asked to cover, and that can be pretty much anything in terms of the club, Youth Academy, Community Trust etc, then ordinarily it would be an agreed investment, not on a loan basis. Obviously we're talking pretty low numbers there.

However, I think it's already been confirmed in the club accounts, that the Society loan increased by £40k this year, so there are still circumstances where that approach is deemed as best.

[gilmour]

So the bits I ca. say is society won’t slow investment unless they retain the 51%. That’s never going to happen.  They have said they can plug the 1.6m deficit by raising 600k a year 😂 when we struggle to get 100k.  Why do you think we’re looking for investment.  The 2nd option is LA based and want to use us as a feeder club for their youth.  Jesus wept we don’t want that.  As for the other bit il lea e it to them to announce when ready. 

[Jay]

56 minutes ago, gilmour said:

So the bits I ca. say is society won’t slow investment unless they retain the 51%. That’s never going to happen. 

Apologies if I've picked this up wrong but, assuming I'm understanding this, that's incorrect on a few levels - firstly, the Well Society absolutely will slow investment if there's genuine red flags or reasons to do so, outwith just the level of shares that any investor is seeking (something I would, hope, that most Motherwell fans would expect). Secondly, there's no pre-agreed position on retaining 51% - hence the announcement last night that Well Society members are to be consulted on that.

56 minutes ago, gilmour said:

They have said they can plug the 1.6m deficit by raising 600k a year 😂 when we struggle to get 100k.  Why do you think we’re looking for investment.  

By "they", I presume you mean the Well Society? I don't think I've ever seen, heard or read anything from the Society, or anyone associated with the Society, that suggests there's a claim of being able to plug a "£1.6m deficit by raising £600k a year". 

[texanwellfan]

5 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

One matter that does concern me though is that of the CEO vacancy. Apparently, the selection process is quite far advanced, which is encouraging, but would any candidate want to put pen to paper whilst the ownership/investment issue is hoveriong over the club?  A real concern for me.

As mintymac mentions, I think the best option would be for Derek Weir to extend but would he do that? At the same time who would take the position knowing that they good be gone at any moment. 

[Clackscat]

12 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

As mintymac mentions, I think the best option would be for Derek Weir to extend but would he do that? At the same time who would take the position knowing that they good be gone at any moment. 

Going by his demeanour last night I don't think he would extend, he looked and sounded scunnered with everything to do with running a football club, (referees, financial constraints, VAR, SFA, FIFA, development fees), there was also a wee throwaway comment at the end alluding to unfair criticism.

Having said that, bridging that gap until there is clarity around prospective investment would imo be a godsend right now so I hope I'm wrong

[Great Balls of Shire]

33 minutes ago, Clackscat said:

Going by his demeanour last night I don't think he would extend, he looked and sounded scunnered with everything to do with running a football club, (referees, financial constraints, VAR, SFA, FIFA, development fees), there was also a wee throwaway comment at the end alluding to unfair criticism.

Having said that, bridging that gap until there is clarity around prospective investment would imo be a godsend right now so I hope I'm wrong

Re unfair criticism, who wouldn't be hacked off especially when it's coming from people with no business experience...maybe the communication could've been better but football has changed so much, burnout must come at some stage.

 

[stv]

1 hour ago, Great Balls of Shire said:

Re unfair criticism, who wouldn't be hacked off especially when it's coming from people with no business experience...maybe the communication could've been better but football has changed so much, burnout must come at some stage.

 

Criticism is easy just type in a few words n there you go, 40 years ago it was a letter to the board and no-one else saw it, now everyone has their opinions aired to the world. Good or bad who knows .
What a thankless job these guys have on the board. Everyone has an opinion with no repercussions. But they need to back up their opinions with actions and be held accountable for them . Full respect for them standing up and be counted . Football has changed massively over the last 40 years, bureaucracy went mad and money mad with it. 

[Spiderpig]

Investment talks progressing Rapidly according to the BBC

Motherwell investment talks 'progressing rapidly' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68369187

[Dee]

8 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

 

The Well Society have asked for the opportunity to provide a strategy/plan that means they'll be more able to continue funding the club and any shortfalls and create a business / fundraising plan of their own for the club, along the lines of the investors.

I also want to point out that Derek Weir stated that was his preferred option; that the Well Society is able to provide the funding required for the club to continue before difficult decisions (i.e. slashing playing budgets etc.) need to be made. Ultimately, the Society needs to be in a position in October to tell the accounts auditors that they have the funds available to support the club for 18 months; if not, that triggers a warning to the SPFL regarding our financial situation.

Also, to be absolutely clear, the Board are in no way making recommendations to shareholders or the Society to go or not go for the investment from either party. That will be decided when bids are submitted and shareholders and WS members have their vote. They are exploring all their options to ensure the financial safeguarding of the club, which is their job as Directors. As I said above, that also includes the WS continuing in its current role and increasing its input to the club.

 

 

An excellent summary of last night's AGM @StAndrew7, thanks for pulling that together. 

I just wanted to pick up on the point made about The Society having the opportunity to present it's own plan.

Firstly, as some have pointed out, I think from it's inception the Society has been hugely successful but in my opinion one of our real failings has been to effectively communicate our success. I noticed a very good summary from @capt_oatson Pie & Bovril that detailed since 16/17 the fan-ownership model has been profitable; Net - £2,415,205. Our loans to the club (around 900k) have been invaluable and who knows where we'd be without that input.

It's important to note that there's room for significant improvement from the Society and if we want to move forward and succeed we must acknowledge our shortcomings. On that note, I'd argue that we've simply not been good enough at is converting those members who are not paying a monthly subscription to actually stump up (if they are in a position to do so) and we've not inspired those who are currently paying to up their contributions. There's many reasons why people might not be paying a monthly subscription but the change from the original model to the current one example; some have paid their initial fee before it was move to monthly DD's and haven't paid much since. This should be an easy fix, and as @Jay has highlighted, I feel with the current re-vamped board in place we are in a much better position to do this sort of thing. 

On said plan, I've been really impressed and inspired by the additions to The Well Society board at the end of last year. The contributions from Amber, Sean and Phil have been excellent and I believe we're moving forward at pace.

From our discussions, and I hope that other members of the Society board who contributed to this don't mind me sharing their vision, it has became clear we must explore in detail the potential of both the 'Well Society and the operations of the club to maximise revenue and to grow. 

Some suggestions put forward from Board members include; 

- Extensive market research of our fan base, cross referencing habits around tickets sales with our membership to identify potential membership growth. In turn allowing the board to develop a strategy for increasing the revenue of TWS, forecasting financial targets therefore dictating our organising strategy for future years. 

- Commission a study of the operational structure of the club similar to what other Scottish Clubs are doing. This will help us identify what additional roles and infrastructure are required and what financial investment would be secured for them over a set time period. A fundraising strategy can then be developed as part of a comprehensive operational strategy that ensures cohesion and shared vision throughout the club that can be collectively evaluated regularly.

- Host a fact finding conference at Fir Park bringing together fan owned clubs across Europe to explore best practice, develop relationships and commercial opportunities.

This alongside the ongoing work and sessions hosted by Phil Speedie should ensure a closer relationship between the Majority Shareholder and the operations of the club and I would hope that it would empower members to be more involved and bring them closer to the club and the vehicle which they are funding. 

By compiling the results from the above projects we can present a fully comprehensive 5-10 year strategy that will sustainably grow the revenue of the club, reduce potential financial risks and ideally ensure remain competitive on the park. The strategy should lay out the require project specific investment and infrastructure requirements and lay out a roadmap to achieve each. 

In my personal opinion, I believe that this work can and should be done whilst continuing to keep our options open to potential investors, providing they are credible and fit with our values.

We've no doubt got a wealth of talent in our ranks that is going untapped. We've got 3,800 not only from Lanarkshire but across the Globe and we simply don't know enough about them and we don't know what each individual can bring to the table. That needs to change, and it needs to change fast, regardless of external investment or not. 

I've been really heartened by progress and I'd like to thank all those that have been involved it in, but there's a long way to go and I'd like as many 'Well fans to be part of that journey as possible. 

Regardless what the future brings, I think discussions like this are so important in highlighting how much the Club means to so many people.

 

 

[Kmcalpin]

Thanks for this useful update Derek. I think it is important though that the Society emails all members with a short summary of what it is proposing to do. I appreciate though that facts are scant and that details might be confidential. Not everyone follows this site or P&B. 

Other things being equal, a Society initiative is my preferred option. The club has told its shareholders about the Society's proposal and its now time for the Society to do the same with its members. I appreciate that the 2 groups are not mutually exclusive. 

There does seem a lot of work for the Society to get through, according to your summary, and I just hope its achievable by October. 

I'll email Sally to suggest a communication be sent out to members. 

[gilmour]

The club's recruitment of a new chief executive is ongoing with Weir scheduled to depart in five weeks. McMahon steps down at the end of the season and another director, Andrew Wilson, has now resigned.1

[Spiderpig]

26 minutes ago, gilmour said:

The club's recruitment of a new chief executive is ongoing with Weir scheduled to depart in five weeks. McMahon steps down at the end of the season and another director, Andrew Wilson, has now resigned.1

We keep getting told the club is stable nothing to see here etc, etc but the current board are all leaving, no sign of a new CEO, the optics don't look good.

[wellgirl]

54 minutes ago, gilmour said:

The club's recruitment of a new chief executive is ongoing with Weir scheduled to depart in five weeks. McMahon steps down at the end of the season and another director, Andrew Wilson, has now resigned.1

I thought Andrew Wilson resigned a while ago. 

[MJC]

It’s going to be a rough ride for us as a club over the next year or so. I don’t mean that in a negative or pessimistic manner, I just think that’s reality and we need to be prepared for it. Big changes are coming our way.