St Johnstone Take Over

[joewarkfanclub]

Welcome back Jay.

In response to Denny C, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I dont agree that we have given fan ownership a good go.

I think we have played with it a bit and the intentions were good, but without any real vision as to where it was going or how to get there.

Thats no real criticism of those involved as we were pretty much the first to do it so there was no manual and we were pretty much making it up as we went along.

For me the fan ownership thing is what has sustained my interest over the last few years which have been pretty grim on the playing front.

For me Motherwell as a town and the surrounding area doesnt have anything to bind it together anymore in the way that say, the steelworks did. The club is the last thing standing so, for me, the future of the club and its place in the community is paramount.

We can poo poo a lot of the initiatives that have taken place in the past and minimise their impact on the football side of our business, but local buy in from the community is so important to everything that we do.

Our youth academy and bringing through young local players is and always has been the best way of us bridging the quality gap. We need to get back to that as well.

It feels like since covid we have lost our way and a bit of that identity. If we have fresh voices on the Well Society Board willing to address these things and grow the Society/Club, they have my backing.

Thats not to say outside investment isnt important and shouldnt be welcomed. But it shouldnt be at the expense of who/what we are.

That might sound like a romantic notion, and maybe it is. But personally I dont see any reason we cant find someone out there with a bit of cash that is a bit of a philanthropist and would be willing to support that ethos.

As for where I see us?

Ensuring our top flight status, the odd cup run, a few more finals with the possibility of maybe actually winning one and the odd foray into Europe is where we have been my entire life. Anything that maintains that without selling us down the river has my backing.

[stv]

When the chips are down a private investor/owners would have no second thoughts about our club if their own finances were in peril or if they could make money quickly. Unless its a straight up guy like Fergus McCan at Celtic ,Les Hutchison with us or a proper millionaire. Look at Dundee have they had decent owners over the last 30years. 

Football Clubs up here are never going to be a sound financial investment unless you sell the assets. Players contracts, producing young prospects  , even football ground land  isn’t worth as much as they were.

Still need backing from somewhere tho Society is not a perfect solution . But makes things a bit more transparent.
Is Rod Stewart doing anything these days. They all seem to hate him now at Celtic since he started telling them a few home truths.

[Jay]

I totally understand folk who think that fan-ownership isn't working. I would disagree with that but I understand it's a totally acceptable opinion to have - particularly as we all have different ideas of what "working" actually means. I think part of that is actually to do with communications, transparency etc that hasn't been good enough from both the Society and the club in previous years in terms of actually showing people that it's "working", but I also think a big part of that is very simple: there's essentially a big spectrum where, at one end, there's "aiming for short-term success no matter the risks" and, at the other end, there's "safeguarding the existence of the club forever, no matter what level that's at."

Every Motherwell fan will fall on that spectrum somewhere, and I don't think there's any wrong answers - people just have different reasons for supporting the club, get different things from going to games, and have different priorities when it comes to their expectations. Personally, I fall quite far along towards that idea that, as long as I have a club to support for the rest of my life, I will be content - even if that means flirting with or even experiencing relegation. I have probably been shunted even further towards that end of the spectrum as a result of discussions I've had around investment. That absolutely does not have to be the same for everyone, and I imagine a lot of people are somewhere in the middle a lot of the time.

Fan-ownership ensures that existence though. While the Well Society has the majority shareholding in the club, the club exists. It may be that, as American investors in particular saturate the European football market, we find ourselves tumbling out of the top flight at some point in the future, as other clubs risk their own long-term futures by chasing that short-term success. There would be difficult decisions to make in that scenario, and a lot of disappointment and heartache, but the future of the club wouldn't be in doubt.

At the other of the spectrum, investment for short-term gain doesn't even necessarily guarantee that short-term gain. Dundee Utd are the absolute perfect example of that so, even if you do choose that route, relegation is far from off the cards. And even if you do receive the few years of keeping up with others in the division, the long-term future of the club ceases to be protected and any decisions about what happens to the club, what it's future looks like, and even who then subsequently takes up the reins further down the line are taken out of the hands of Motherwell supporters.

Again, I don't think there's necessarily a "right answer". Folk want different things from supporting the club. There's my answer and it may be different from other people's, and that's fine. But what's most important is that, with fan-ownership currently in place, if we get to a point where a majority of Well Society members are at that "short-term success" end of the spectrum, then that's what will occur - which, in itself, is almost a good example of a benefit of fan-ownership working and giving the supporters control of the club's direction.

[Kmcalpin]

Firstly, thanks for posting on here Jay. Its always good to have more /better communication not only with members but also with the wider fanbase. In terms of what the Society has achieved, some don't fully understand. Without its presence the club would not have paid off its debts and would have gone onto administration.  Thats a huge achievement in my book. As with many things in life, stakeholders do not see what you have prevented, stopped or avoided. Thats life.

Has it been run perfectly  - no. Could things be improved - yes. However, I took heart from the recent elections.  We needed a blend of continuity and fresh blood and we got that.  I now hope we can on to a higher level, through fan ownership. Compared to fans of other clubs, I think we tend to have more more modest expectations and thats a good thing up to a point, providing it doesn't stifle ambition.

I'm very wary of private investment, although thats not necessarily a bad thing, providing our club is safeguarded.  I believe that at least one individual was/is interested in putting money into the club under the present model. I've no idea though, how successful the "Geez money" video was in attracting genuine interest. Clubs like the Dundee twins, St Johnstone and Hibs are playing with fire for short/medium term gain. Dunfermline did something similar a few years ago, and whilst they succeeded, up to a point, yes up to a point in the short term, they've paid heavily for it ever since.

I'm fully behind fan ownership but our model can't be fossilised. It had to grow and adapt..

Tonight's club AGM will hopefully give us an update on several crucial matters eg a new CEO and Chairman. Good news on that front will be a fillip for everyone.

[dennyc]

5 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

In response to Denny C, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I dont agree that we have given fan ownership a good go.

I think we have played with it a bit and the intentions were good, but without any real vision as to where it was going or how to get there.

Thats no real criticism of those involved as we were pretty much the first to do it so there was no manual and we were pretty much making it up as we went along.

 

By “giving it a good go” my view was that within the restrictions in which we exist….fairly small active fan base, the financial set up of the Premiership, the lure of the OF and such….. it was always going to be a big ask to make our fan ownership a success in the Premiership.  A worthy aspiration though. 

i think everybody involved from day one has attempted to tweak and improve how we operate. And good on them for recognising that need. New approaches have been tried and the current WS is not the model that was unveiled at the Launch. As examples. Where is the local Corporate buy in? It was identified early on that individual fan membership would not in itself be sufficient but even after all these years I wonder if any Businesses have taken out corporate membership? We heard nothing after those initial meetings. Does that option still exist? I have asked but without reply.
The aim was also to go forward with no Bank debt whatsoever and within a few years we would be operating within Budget. With Society funds (protected) available for short term finance ( short term loans if you like)or heaven forbid to provide start up Capital were MFC to go under. Recession and CoVid were unforeseen barriers of course.

My gut feeling is that those in charge recognise that our model is not sustainable at our current level,  have done what they can, but feel that change is required if we are not to decline further. By that I mean in status. The recent plea for investment only served to convince me of that. Perhaps they have run out of ideas for generating finance at the same time as carrying forward the ethos of the Well Society. I am not convinced the two are compatible.

I hope and pray I am totally wrong and that our Board …or new Board if it comes to that…identify a way forward that suits us all, reduces risk and maintains us as a top level Club. For me continued Fan Ownership would be nice but is not the most important criteria. Somebody mentioned the word Romantic. Perhaps it will come down to a choice between that and Reality.

Finally, it is fantastic to read that so many of us love our Club. That certainly comes through even though we may have differing opinions about the way forward. 

 

[grizzlyg]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

This is a really good question & one that's sparked my return from a long hiatus on here (although anyone who also peruses P&B will notice I started posting there a couple of weeks ago after years away too).

As a member of the Well Society Board who has been elected & re-elected by Society members, I personally think there's an element of responsibility there in terms of safeguarding fan-ownership. It seems logical to assume that, if Society members have voted for you, they want you to try & grow the Society, champion the benefits of fan-ownership, and presumably subscribe to one of the key reasons used for fan-ownership in the first place - preventing the club from falling into the wrong hands.

In terms of growing the Society, I feel like there is now a majority of like-minded individuals on the Board following the recent elections (that, in all honesty, previously just didn't exist to the same extent) who recognise the need for drastic improvements across the Society, ensuring greater transparency, far better communications, and a raft of other aspects. That work is very much underway and I think it's certain that the Society will see growth in membership & income in the coming months & beyond as a direct result - the ceiling of that is, of course, very much up for debate. But, genuinely, it's the most positive I've felt about fan-ownership this side of the pandemic. 

So, for me, the answers to the original question like this are really important - because if it is, in fact, the case that a majority of Well Society members would rather end fan-ownership, then that's something we would need to be guided by and, essentially, carry out - and it's something we will likely have to actually ask members sooner rather than later, to ensure that we're doing what they want us to do. For the avoidance of doubt, no investment happens in the football club without, firstly, the Well Society Board being involved in the discussions with interested parties and, secondly, a ballot of all Society members - with a majority needing to agree to the offer.

In terms of the actual question itself, I think it's worth highlighting the, potentially never-ending, caveats that mean it's not anywhere near as simple a question as "would you swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". The level of investment itself, who is providing that investment, their intentions for the club, and a whole host of other aspects are incredibly important there too. It's also worth remembering that fan-ownership isn't just some trinket that's been put in a cupboard in the Phil O'Donnell Stand somewhere, it's the result of years and years of time, effort, and money from an endless list of individuals, so I dare say there's a need to actually consider what scrapping all that work is worth to people.

Put it this way - I don't think in today's world it's ever going to be as simple as folk just wanting to "swap fan-ownership to compete with clubs who have ownership investment". What else would they sacrifice for that and where are the red lines? Would folk take a few extra quid to ensure that we're potentially finishing 6th or 7th each year, in exchange for a club that loses its entire community-based ethos? Would folk take five years of European adventures, in exchange for investment that is only part of a five year plan, with investors set to pack up & leave soon after leaving the club in the lurch? Would folk take dodgy money from unknown sources to make us the 3rd force in Scottish football until the investors got bored, in exchange for the eradication of our own youth academy? Would folk take all of those sacrifices - the loss of the club's identify, no long-term plan, no youth academy - for a club that could still end up in the Championship regardless of investment like Dundee Utd? All hypothetical scenarios but all very real possibilities.

As I mentioned before, protecting the club from falling into the "wrong hands" has long been a reason given for fan-ownership, and I think this is possibly a very real example of a scenario where people need to be very careful what they wish for.

Great post Jay

[joewarkfanclub]

2 hours ago, dennyc said:

By “giving it a good go” my view was that within the restrictions in which we exist….fairly small active fan base, the financial set up of the Premiership, the lure of the OF and such….. it was always going to be a big ask to make our fan ownership a success in the Premiership.  A worthy aspiration though. 

i think everybody involved from day one has attempted to tweak and improve how we operate. And good on them for recognising that need. New approaches have been tried and the current WS is not the model that was unveiled at the Launch. As examples. Where is the local Corporate buy in? It was identified early on that individual fan membership would not in itself be sufficient but even after all these years I wonder if any Businesses have taken out corporate membership? We heard nothing after those initial meetings. Does that option still exist? I have asked but without reply.
The aim was also to go forward with no Bank debt whatsoever and within a few years we would be operating within Budget. With Society funds (protected) available for short term finance ( short term loans if you like)or heaven forbid to provide start up Capital were MFC to go under. Recession and CoVid were unforeseen barriers of course.

My gut feeling is that those in charge recognise that our model is not sustainable at our current level,  have done what they can, but feel that change is required if we are not to decline further. By that I mean in status. The recent plea for investment only served to convince me of that. Perhaps they have run out of ideas for generating finance at the same time as carrying forward the ethos of the Well Society. I am not convinced the two are compatible.

I hope and pray I am totally wrong and that our Board …or new Board if it comes to that…identify a way forward that suits us all, reduces risk and maintains us as a top level Club. For me continued Fan Ownership would be nice but is not the most important criteria. Somebody mentioned the word Romantic. Perhaps it will come down to a choice between that and Reality.

Finally, it is fantastic to read that so many of us love our Club. That certainly comes through even though we may have differing opinions about the wait forward. 

 

All fair comment 

[AllyMax]

5 hours ago, stv said:

When the chips are down a private investor/owners would have no second thoughts about our club if their own finances were in peril or if they could make money quickly. Unless its a straight up guy like Fergus McCan at Celtic ,Les Hutchison with us or a proper millionaire. Look at Dundee have they had decent owners over the last 30years. 

Football Clubs up here are never going to be a sound financial investment unless you sell the assets. Players contracts, producing young prospects  , even football ground land  isn’t worth as much as they were.

Still need backing from somewhere tho Society is not a perfect solution . But makes things a bit more transparent.
Is Rod Stewart doing anything these days. They all seem to hate him now at Celtic since he started telling them a few home truths.

Agree with most of what you say mate, but Dundee have been in administration twice in the last 24 years due to loony owners.  That's what most worries me about private investment, especially from a 'rich business man'. There is no real route in Scottish football to making money for anyome outside the h**s and the tims, unless you are better than everyone else in the league at unearthing unknown talent, getting them to sign longish deals and selling them at massive profit.  Every club in the league would be doing that if it was just a matter of 'hiring the right head of recruitment'. No succesful business person throws monry into things without wanting something back out. Thats what makes them succesful.

[stv]

1 hour ago, AllyMax said:

Agree with most of what you say mate, but Dundee have been in administration twice in the last 24 years due to loony owners.  That's what most worries me about private investment, especially from a 'rich business man'. There is no real route in Scottish football to making money for anyome outside the h**s and the tims, unless you are better than everyone else in the league at unearthing unknown talent, getting them to sign longish deals and selling them at massive profit.  Every club in the league would be doing that if it was just a matter of 'hiring the right head of recruitment'. No succesful business person throws monry into things without wanting something back out. Thats what makes them succesful.

Sorry missed out have ( NOT ) had decent owners.
 

All been crooks,rouges n chancers , allegedly 

[fizoxy]

On 2/20/2024 at 7:13 AM, FirParkCornerExile said:

To answer a few, I'm not asking if it's feasible, I'm asking if the offer was there for substantial investment but a condition was fan ownership being given up how many of you would say yes.

If I thought football as we know it would still be here for my grandkids, I'd say no.

However, with the super league and it's fall out inevitable, i say let's throw caution to the wind and chuck millions at it and go out with a bang, finishing 4th and getting to a couple of semi finals.

[Ya Bezzer!]

Would rather watch us in the Championship (or lower) than give up the 51% stake.

We are what we are and we need to cut our cloth accordingly.  If that means we can't be a Premiership club every season, so be it.

Having said that I suspect we have squandered massive amounts of money on ridiculous player turn over and managers and that needs to end.

Also we can't afford to subsidy a women's team so they need to find their own level just like we do.

 

[Well-Made]

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. 

St Johnstone's prospective new owners could trade in McDiarmid Park for a newer model and make a quick profit - because the current stadium occupies a prime development site. (The Herald)

From The Herald

Big news this week as, for the first time since the club was put up for sale, there appears to be a deal in the offing.

The big questions about any outside investment – especially when it's coming from overseas – is who is involved? And what is in it for them?

Saints are in a very, very different position to other clubs who have needed outside investment – or a rescue package – in recent years.

Above all else, what was once a piece of farmland out past the edge of town that was gifted to the club for free is now an enormously valuable asset surrounded on all sides by housing and commercial development and in a strategically well-connected site.

The footprint of McDiarmid Park and its surroundings isn’t far off the size of the lower half of the Western Edge development just to the south of the stadium. It is truly massive and would be a developer’s dream.

So the question comes in several parts – what is the club, which presumably includes the cash in the bank and the value of the land and stadium on top of the actual value of a Premiership football team, actually worth? Assuming it isn’t a philanthropic gesture, what kind of return on investment does an investor expect? What assurances are there that there isn’t some kind of asset stripping in mind, or an arrangement that separates the club from the stadium and leaves us perpetually in debt to an outside entity?

The question of the stadium itself is interesting to me. I’m closer to 40 than I care to admit but even I’m too young to remember Muirton Park. It may be surprising to those a decade or more younger than me but when McDiarmid Park opened back in the late 80s it was cutting edge – the first of its kind and the template for a lot of what followed in stadium design in the 90s and 2000s.

But as, like I, our home stadium approaches the end of its fourth decade, so too it starts to show its age, just as I do. There are bound to be some serious repair bills in the future – something that has been alluded to in the past. Muirton Park lasted 60 years – and while there’s little prospect of McDiarmid Park getting to a similar level of disrepair, it is no longer a place that’s at the forefront of modern stadium design.

It would make sense to me if a new owner came in with a similar mindset to Geoff Brown in the 80s – trade in an old stadium for a newer model and find a way for the club to profit. A new owner may well then be able to realise a return on investment in the short to medium term.

But if that was the plan, wouldn’t our renown housebuilder owner not already have gone down that route?

Who is to say. For my money, I wouldn’t object to that kind of plan if it moved us to a new ground, fully enclosed on all corners, with stands tight to the pitch and a capacity in the 8-9000 range. Something closer to the town centre would be great too.

That seems quite unlikely – and I think my plan of building the May 17 Memorial Thunderdrome on the Lesser South Inch is probably a little far-fetched – but it would be a great way to move the club forward once more.

Refresh and renew – that’s what we need right now. Hopefully this process comes to fruition sooner rather than later, and I think we owe our current owners the benefit of our trust that he won’t sell out to someone with malign intent.

[Well-Made]

So following on from the St Johnstone post, I do wonder what is in it for anyone wanting to invest in Motherwell.

So it has got me thinking, if they just wanted to invest and take a back seat, providing guidance etc on how to move the club forward, would that be worth it too them?

If it's 50/50 it's unlikely that things will get done, so no return

If they get control of the Club, then they could look at selling off the ground (probably the only way to get their money back), doing a Boyle and giving the Ugly Sisters and give them back the use of the Cooper Stand for instance and alienate the fans even more, especially if they have no ties to the Club or surrounding area.

 

There is no doubt the club is stagnating and we need to make one of the choices above or stay as we are and hope the Well Society can find ways to bring in more money, not only more money for the team but for the repair of the stadium or a move to a purpose built stadium probably with training facilities , so we dont' have extra outgoings.

The next few months will be interesting, one way or another. A new CEO, a new 'Well Board and hopefully the 'Well Society with still some semblance of control for the fans,

If the Well Society and Club asked us to vote on this today, I'd be hard pushed to say Yes to an investor.

We need to see details, we need to see some protection for the club, we need to see what involvement the Well Society can have.

Is it even worth given 51% of the Club away if they can't help steer us away from the rocks.

Especially if the new owner doesn''t know or understand Scottish Football

 

 

[StAndrew7]

44 minutes ago, Well-Made said:

The next few months will be interesting, one way or another. A new CEO, a new 'Well Board and hopefully the 'Well Society with still some semblance of control for the fans,

If the Well Society and Club asked us to vote on this today, I'd be hard pushed to say Yes to an investor.

We need to see details, we need to see some protection for the club, we need to see what involvement the Well Society can have.

Is it even worth given 51% of the Club away if they can't help steer us away from the rocks.

Especially if the new owner doesn''t know or understand Scottish Football

 

 

You wouldn't ever be asked to do that though, so not sure what the point you're making is? 

The question the WS will be consulting on shortly is if the membership is willing to give up fan ownership or not to any potential investor. If the answer is no, the WS Board will feed that back to the MFC Board, who will in turn tell investors that. If they're not interested, they'll then pull out. If they are, they'll come back with a new head of terms/initial agreement on it.

If things progress on whatever terms the WS agree to for a continued/developing fan ownership model and we receive a formal offer for investment, everyone with a stake in the club - WS member or private shareholder - will receive the full details of the investment offer to then make a decision/vote yay or nay.

[texanwellfan]

51 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

You wouldn't ever be asked to do that though, so not sure what the point you're making is? 

The question the WS will be consulting on shortly is if the membership is willing to give up fan ownership or not to any potential investor. If the answer is no, the WS Board will feed that back to the MFC Board, who will in turn tell investors that. If they're not interested, they'll then pull out. If they are, they'll come back with a new head of terms/initial agreement on it.

If things progress on whatever terms the WS agree to for a continued/developing fan ownership model and we receive a formal offer for investment, everyone with a stake in the club - WS member or private shareholder - will receive the full details of the investment offer to then make a decision/vote yay or nay.

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 yes ? 
 

edit:
you can see where I’m heading. If the 49% shareholders said yes and 20% of WS said yes, if the WS vote is taken as all or nothing you could possibly end up with a decision that the majority of shareholders don’t want. 

Edited February 23 by texanwellfan

[StAndrew7]

22 minutes 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 yes ? 

I think the WS has a 71 or 72% shareholding now, I think but yeah, I get you.

Someone on the WS Board can confirm (@Jay or @Dee), but as far as I understand it in this instance, it doesn't translate like that. If the WS votes to say it doesn't want to dilute shares below the club being fan owned, that's it and that position will then be communicated by the WS Board to the MFC Board and subsequently to any potential investors that it's a line in the sand.

If you're talking about voting on a potential investment bid, rather than a yay or nay on fan ownership percentages, that's different. The majority rules and the shares vote as a block, even if it's 51/49 in either direction, although that might be subject to the terms the WS was drawn up under in terms of turnout, percentages required and so on.

[texanwellfan]

5 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I think the WS has a 71 or 72% shareholding now, I think but yeah, I get you.

Someone on the WS Board can confirm (@Jay or @Dee), but as far as I understand it in this instance, it doesn't translate like that. If the WS votes to say it doesn't want to dilute shares below the club being fan owned, that's it and that position will then be communicated by the WS Board to the MFC Board.

If you're talking about voting on a potential investment bid, rather than a yay or nay on fan ownership percentages, that's different. The majority rules and the shares vote as a block, even if it's 51/49 in either direction, although that might be subject to the terms the WS was drawn up under.

I didn’t realize that WS percentage was so high. I guess the 51% number was just being mentioned as a minimum for the WS to maintain control. Anyway will be exciting/interesting to see where this leads us. 

[dennyc]

 

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

You wouldn't ever be asked to do that though, so not sure what the point you're making is? 

The question the WS will be consulting on shortly is if the membership is willing to give up fan ownership or not to any potential investor. If the answer is no, the WS Board will feed that back to the MFC Board, who will in turn tell investors that. If they're not interested, they'll then pull out. If they are, they'll come back with a new head of terms/initial agreement on it.

If things progress and we receive a formal offer for investment, everyone, WS member or private shareholder will receive the full details of the investment offer to then make a decision/vote yay or nay.

May I suggest that the initial question should actually carry three options. Not everyone is a definite no or yes at present. That should be reflected. I for one will only decide when I see the detailed proposal and have had a chance to ask questions.

eg. 

1. No

2. Yes

3. Undecided but open to change if the terms are suitable and safeguard MFC. 

That would possibly give the Club Board some more negotiating power if the majority were open to change, but not at any cost. If it is a majority no, then end of. 

Discussion now is good. But we are all speculating regards what will be proposed. Unless we have a Corporate Lawyer in our ranks, then how much of what we assume is actually correct? Somebody mentioned St Johnstone. What they may or may not do ground wise is no indicator of what Motherwell may or may not do. Each Club needs to do what is in their own best interests. Based on their own circumstances. . But if St J are sitting on prime development land which they can sell for a fortune, move to a new ground and still have substantial funds left in the kitty to secure their future, then lucky them.

On the 51% red line that folk mention, I get that being the majority shareholder carries power and enables ‘ fan owned’ bragging rights. But a simple (amateurish)  internet search reveals Companies often have clauses build in to their Corporate Agreement that permit a Shareholding of only 26% or so  to veto certain proposals. It might even be an automatic right? Veto rights it seems can be drawn up to cover almost anything. Like the sale of Fir Park for instance. So a 51% Majority does not grant freedom to do what you like.  I could vote for a % reduction if I was convinced MFC was protected against asset stripping and such. Whether any investor would agree to such veto powers is for those whose task it is to protect the Club to investigate. In essence I understand  there are terms that can be drawn up to protect against much, if not all, of the concerns that folk will rightly have. But I am no expert so will happily leave that to the Professionals to deal with. 
Also, it was clearly stated that potential investors were not looking to take a Charge over Fir Park or have the Club provide Guarantees which would put Club assets at risk. That for me is huge and suggests a long term involvement rather than an effort to make a quick buck. 

My request to MFC and the WS is that when more details are known and we are asked to give our input, then please provide straight answers to straight questions. If the answer is not known, then say so. 

 

[StAndrew7]

3 minutes ago, dennyc said:

My request to MFC and the WS is that when more details are known and we are asked to give our input, then please provide straight answers to straight questions. If the answer is not known, then say so. 

I think you've hit the nail on the head there with everything you've said; the wording/phrasing of the WS poll/survey etc. will be key to understanding how any of the potential investment is to progress. That will take some time, so any potential investors will have to wait until the answers can be collated and confirmed by the WS Board to then be communicated to the MFC Board, which then informs any ongoing negotiations and discussions.

Like I said earlier, the details will come to everyone who requires them to vote when a final proposal/position is reached, if at all. I also posted about this on P&B and @Jay confirmed that the WS Board have already met with the parties and have engaged in their own initial research into each, prior to any further development of bids of proposals. He's said, quite clearly, that the WS Board would not put any investment proposal to the membership that wasn't credible:

Quote

Yeah, obviously none of us on the Society Board would be putting out details at this stage, although - as outlined at the AGM - we have had discussions with both, saw sight of the extent of proposals, and had a chance to do our own due diligence in terms of who they are, what they're intentions are, how in line they are with the club's values etc. Obviously all of that would then be provided to members, were we to get to a point of seeking agreement from the Society membership in relation to a particular investment offer.

Also, in terms of that due diligence, I personally think it's important that the Society Board is putting any investment offer out to members, as long as it's credible, makes sense, is actually a reasonably "good deal", and doesn't have any particular red flags. I assume that's what people have understood the Society's role to be at the moment, rather than just offering out any option that comes along to members, but thought it might be worth clarifying.

 

[santheman]

Having looked through the various social media platforms it's a bit concerning at the lack of knowledge and understanding about what is actually going on is out there.

On here and P&B the discussion is measured and informative, however elsewhere some of the things being banded about are absolutely wild and that is from some self confessed WS members. Someone was even suggesting that we are in danger of going into administration if we don't accept one of the offers.

It's getting a little heated between fans so I think the quicker the WS get something out in the form of a factsheet or a QandA format the better to dispel some of the more outlandish stories being banded about.

[Stuwell2]

36 minutes ago, santheman said:

It's getting a little heated between fans so I think the quicker the WS get something out in the form of a factsheet or a QandA format the better to dispel some of the more outlandish stories being banded about.

Santheman this isn’t directed at you so nothing personal but on the above point here’s my view on folk getting their knickers in a twist and ranting  before anything has been said. 

Firstly, I’d think that both the WS & MFC board will be bound by some sort of confidentiality agreement with the other parties so what they can say at the moment will be limited - if I were the investor I’d certainly be insisting on that. 

I’d like to think that they will both update everyone as and when they can. 

Other than that both are tasked with ensuring the long term interest of Motherwell football club and not giving continuous updates on what’s happening with everything that is going on with the club - no matter what they say someone will still think it’s not good enough and think they know better. Although I agree with folk that the board haven’t covered themselves in glory lately.

[santheman]

3 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:

Santheman this isn’t directed at you so nothing personal but on the above point here’s my view on folk getting their knickers in a twist and ranting  before anything has been said. 

Firstly, I’d think that both the WS & MFC board will be bound by some sort of confidentiality agreement with the other parties so what they can say at the moment will be limited - if I were the investor I’d certainly be insisting on that. 

I’d like to think that they will both update everyone as and when they can. 

Other than that both are tasked with ensuring the long term interest of Motherwell football club and not giving continuous updates on what’s happening with everything that is going on with the club - no matter what they say someone will still think it’s not good enough and think they know better. 

Oh I would never expect them to divulge any confidential information or anything that could jeopardise any discussions. 

I just mean basic stuff like a brief update to tell fans why we need investment and that we're in no danger of going bust because there a lot of people out there who don't know the basics of the situation and don't have the information that Jay and Co have posted on here.

[Stuwell2]

13 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:

 

Edited February 23 by Stuwell2
Double post on edit

[Kmcalpin]

45 minutes ago, santheman said:

Someone was even suggesting that we are in danger of going into administration if we don't accept one of the offers.

From the information provided, and thanks to those who have done this, I don't think it's a wild take at all.  That's not to say it would happen though. My understanding is that the club and the Society have sufficient funds to cover last season's loss of £1.6m. So no immediate threat. However  am I right in thinking that there is a projected loss again this year? That being the case we would be struggling, but would probably get by. However, the SPFL will require a guarantee by October, that we can meet any potential debts for 2024-25 and that's where the problem lies. 

A wildcard  of course, is the potential sale of Lennon Miller. 

Is all that a correct assumption? 

[santheman]

I think I've read somewhere that the club can give that assurance to the SPL in October(maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong)but beyond that who knows as there's too many variables at play.

Will we have any sellable assets in the squad? Miller possibly.

Again I read somewhere Nick Dawes said that like every other commodity securing players on a contract is going to cost more, so I'm assuming he means that a player you could get for £1000pw last summer then the same player would cost 12/13/1500 this summer and that trend will continue no doubt so our budgets could be even more stretched.

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.