Kmcalpin Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 29 minutes ago, santheman said: Edit to add I should have said n my previous post that some fans are under the impression that we're in imminent danger of administration when we're clearly not. Agreed San that is not on the cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 4 hours ago, texanwellfan said: So let’s say the well society vote to not give up the 51% stake in a vote that is split 60/40 within the well society. What does that translate to when taken into consideration for the voting of the shareholders? Does a 60/40 vote within the well society mean that the full 51% equates to a no or does it translate to 30.6% for no and 20.4% for It doesn't matter what the majority is so long as its clear. For example, if its 51% against 49% then the entire Society's shareholding of say 71% would count in any club vote either yay or nay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 7 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: It doesn't matter what the majority is so long as its clear. For example, if its 51% against 49% then the entire Society's shareholding of say 71% would count in any club vote either yay or nay. Yep that’s what I wasn’t sure of, so now you have made it clear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dossertillidie2 Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 Was told today that 2 EK businessman with US backers are looking to make a bid for a minority stake in the club. Idea would be around providing an interest free credit line each season to the club with a return on investment only through player sales. They are MFC fans and see the Lanarkshire area as having huge potential in growing and developing home grown and US talent and would make separate investment specifically in that area . Not sure if this is one of the reported two offers in todays papers If true the academy is 100% where I would like us to focus on investing over the next 3-5yrs as it should be literally the life blood of our club in helping us become financially sustainable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 1 hour ago, Dossertillidie2 said: Was told today that 2 EK businessman with US backers are looking to make a bid for a minority stake in the club. Idea would be around providing an interest free credit line each season to the club with a return on investment only through player sales. They are MFC fans and see the Lanarkshire area as having huge potential in growing and developing home grown and US talent and would make separate investment specifically in that area . Not sure if this is one of the reported two offers in todays papers If true the academy is 100% where I would like us to focus on investing over the next 3-5yrs as it should be literally the life blood of our club in helping us become financially sustainable Wouldn't touch that personally. Transfer fees are a huge part of our ongoing business model. Also sounds an awful lot like the bid that was discussed quite a few years ago, which was mentioned on Wednesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 13 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Wouldn't touch that personally. Transfer fees are a huge part of our ongoing business model. Also sounds an awful lot like the bid that was discussed quite a few years ago, which was mentioned on Wednesday. Similar to the Dundee Utd model of a few years ago too and we can see where they are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 We have incurred losses over the past two years….please correct me if I am mistaken….and are projected for another loss in the next set of Accounts. How long can the WS and MFC continue to absorb those losses? Latest projections are that in a poor season there is a £750k shortfall. How many David Turnbull’s are we likely to unearth? How much will an ageing Fir Park cost us in the next few years? The only measure I have to work on is that from quoted figures the Society has to date raised a net sum of £1.7m from fans. Not sure what is meant by ‘net’. Bank balance is projected to be 750k at year end so by my very basic calculation that is £1m of Society funds gone, either by way of donations or specific project requests from MFC. And only 1 season of shortfall available if required. So is the crux of the matter simply that we accept additional external funding to cover our £6m a year costs (and rising) at Premiership level or we refuse that external funding and accept we fall to whatever level will mean we balance the books? Basic as that. I appreciate and think it is only right that the WS are given the chance to provide their own funding proposals. But how on earth are they going to raise the funds required year on year? Possibly £750k a year and rising. It seems like a huge ask to me. And before anybody wades in. I am not suggesting we are going bust. But we need to decide at what level we wish to compete. And what is feasible in respect of the Society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 9 minutes ago, dennyc said: We have incurred losses over the past two years….please correct me if I am mistaken….and are projected for another loss in the next set of Accounts. How long can the WS and MFC continue to absorb those losses? Latest projections are that in a poor season there is a £750k shortfall. How many David Turnbull’s are we likely The only measure I have to work on is that from quoted figures the Society has to date raised a net sum of £1.7m from fans. Not sure what is meant by ‘net’........I appreciate and think it is only right that the WS are given the chance to provide their own funding proposals. But how on earth are they going to raise the funds required year on year? Possibly £750k a year and rising. It seems like a huge ask to me. Good post Denny. As to your first point, I assume that the net figure takes into account staff and admin costs. Beyond that, I'm not clear. Does it take into account monies already paid to the club or to other beneficiaries? I'm supportive of a Society proposal to raise say £750k annually, but like you I'm not sure how they'd go about doing that. Early days of course and we have no details on which to base decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dossertillidie2 Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said: Wouldn't touch that personally. Transfer fees are a huge part of our ongoing business model. Also sounds an awful lot like the bid that was discussed quite a few years ago, which was mentioned on Wednesday. What bid was that? Was that the Mexican one under boyle? Think they were Mexicans the way it was described to me was they would look to take a share of the transfer fee as repayment for their investment each year. I’d be all for that if the majority of the transfer fees went into the clubs main pot to be self sustainable I reckon that’s what we are looking for in essence a benefactor that can back us when the society cant My worry with that is would society members switch off their payments more easily if they knew we had a knight in shining Armour in the wings? one of the guys mentioned I know through friends and know he is a massive well fan so can only imagine he has the best intentions for the club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 59 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: I'm supportive of a Society proposal to raise say £750k annually, but like you I'm not sure how they'd go about doing that. Early days of course and we have no details on which to base decisions. Simple arithmetic says that 3500 members donating £20 pm generates income of £840k annually. Please check my calculations! As costs rise and if no meaningful sale of players or cup runs then that £750k shortfall rises very quickly. So the monthly subscriptions or member numbers need to also increase. I will need convincing that such season on season income is feasible given how much effort has gone into getting us to current membership levels/donations. That's the thing for me, it is not a one off, one season uplift that the Society must guarantee. Like many I love the status of being fan owned and would prefer that to continue, but for me, not at any cost. Just trying to be realistic. Also I suggested earlier that a majority holding is not required to Veto certain proposals by any new owner. There are protections available to safeguard our future existence… At Fir Park if that is what fans prefer. Those protections can be built into any Agreement if all parties agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 21 minutes ago, Dossertillidie2 said: What bid was that? Was that the Mexican one under boyle? Think they were Mexicans the way it was described to me was they would look to take a share of the transfer fee as repayment for their investment each year. I’d be all for that if the majority of the transfer fees went into the clubs main pot to be self sustainable I reckon that’s what we are looking for in essence a benefactor that can back us when the society cant My worry with that is would society members switch off their payments more easily if they knew we had a knight in shining Armour in the wings? one of the guys mentioned I know through friends and know he is a massive well fan so can only imagine he has the best intentions for the club The bid mentioned on Wednesday was one that was put to the club recently. Like I think since the Society has been in place but I'd need someone else to confirm that. I don't think a benefactor model works, personally. There needs to be a buy in to the club (literally, in shares) for me to prove someone is serious and has the long term interests of the club at the centre of any bid or investment and won't be looking for a return on their credit line, or any securities against the club's assets. If anything I'd be wanting more focus and attention on transformation within the structure of the business side of the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0Neils40yarder Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 10 hours ago, StAndrew7 said: Wouldn't touch that personally. Transfer fees are a huge part of our ongoing business model. Also sounds an awful lot like the bid that was discussed quite a few years ago, which was mentioned on Wednesday. To me, this seems like a sound idea...but only dependant on how large a return they would command from any players sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Grew Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 All very well reasoned views and obviously heart-felt. However the ‘club’ appeared to have recognised that its present financial model on its own wasn’t sustainable going forward, hence the appeal for interested parties to invest. I, like the rest of the ‘Well family would’ve been utterly devastated if we had ‘gone under’ a few years back and I still would be if it reared its ugly head again. However I always felt that no matter how well intentioned, fan ownership with a core fan-base of around 4,000 was never sustainable long term. So, I think we all need to think long and hard about what we want for our club and at what level we want it to operate. If our raison d’etre is simply to ensure we continue to exist AND we want to stick with the current financial model to achieve this, then we might have to accept this means playing and staying outwith the premier league. Not an easy decision to make as this would inevitably lead to reductions in income from gate receipts, hospitality, TV and sponsorship thus putting more strain on the WS. Never a dull moment being a ‘Well fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 19 hours ago, Well-Made said: From the Scottish Gossip on the BBC. Not even warm in the seats yet and this is getting peddled. As a St J fan, I'd be worried, we have seen enough clubs think they can sell their ground and move to another. Yes, I'd be a bit concerned too. St Johnstone and St Mirren were in the right place at the right time. In St Mirren's case they sold old Love Street at the very height of the Retail boom when we all worshipped the big supermarkets. There was money in them thar stadia. In St Johnstone's case, they sold Muirton to a supermarket too, Asda on Dunkeld Road. A benefactor, farmer McDiarmid gifted them the ground for free to build a new stadium with plenty of surrounding land on the edge of town. In the Geoff Brown era they were rightly lauded as being a well run club and their war chest from the sale of Muirton, allowed them to push the boat out a bit on the playing side. Times change though and Geoff Brown and his family wanted out. The multi million war chest has now diminshed. Timing is critical in these matters, of course and after years of opposition, an expanding and wealthy Perth is gobbling up more land. The once sacrosanct land to the west of the A9 is being opened up to developers. For those of you who know Perth you'll be aware of the development at the old Auction Market site, and the new housing there. Bertha Park too, to the north west of the infamous Inveralmond roundabout is zoned for housing. So its quite conceivable that St Johnstone could flog McDiarmid Park to a housing developer (its within the existing settlement envelope and to the east of the A9 after all) and make a killing out of it. unlike Fir Park, there are no underground workings. Then build a new stadium on greenfield land to the west of the A9. Unlike the Motherwell conurbation, and it is a conurabtion, Perth is a wealthy wee city with a large rural hinterland and no ugly sisters nearby. That said they do attract smaller crowds than us and the population is smaller, but growing. In short, their situation is not quite the same as ours. They have more to gain, but more to lose. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.