New Investment Options

[Villageman]

Would someone if they still have the mail asking us to vote please post. I maybe wrong but I seem to remember it said along the lines of " Outside investment even if it reduced WS holding to less than 51%"

[Yabba's Turd]

The mail I have says - I would/would not consider voting in support any proposal which could see the Well society lose the majority shareholding

[bobbybingo]

8 hours ago, Casagolda said:

He clearly had the intent on having an investor take a majority shareholding otherwise there would have been no straw poll of Well Society members to ask that very question.

 

Your proof that he intends to sell investors a majority shareholding is that Society members were asked whether they would consider such a possibility or reject it out of hand - would that not be prudent when talks with any potential investors reach a certain stage, irrespective of any individual's views?

And can an individual push such a deal through without the Well Society members voting in favour of it?

[Kmcalpin]

12 hours ago, Motherwellfc1991 said:

I joined the society way back when it was launched and paid a decent monthly contribution for a good few years but I’ve never had an email or anything from them since the joining pack - ever !! I even used the email address posted here recently and still haven’t heard back. Because I don’t contribute now does that mean I don’t have voting rights anymore ?..............The structure and the society’s medium and long term strategy will go a long way in me deciding how i vote ( if I’m allowed) and whether I start contributing again...........
I may be looking in the wrong places but so far it’s a bit like a general election with more being said about the potential investment by society members that I’m aware of than how the society is going to be successful moving forward - does the society have a written strategic plan for the future ?

You are still entitled to a vote.

Sorry, but it needs to be asked.............have you changed email address?  Have you checked your spam/junk folders? Try ringing the Society. These problems do need to be sorted out. I'd hope, in any event, someone from the Society has/would PM you. No doubt there are others like you.

We have to be patient in the short term, to give the Society time to work up its proposal. After a period of torpor, things have improved since the Society elections.

 

[steelboy]

26 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

 

And can an individual push such a deal through without the Well Society members voting in favour of it?

I went to a Well Society meeting years about expanding to a 14 team league with a 6-8 split. At the beginning of the meeting virtually everyone in attendance was against the proposal. Two hours later due to bullshit, lies and spin from Leeann Dempster everyone in attendance apart from three people voted for it. With a straight face she told the meeting that the 12 team league set up with 1 relegation place and 1 playoff place that we have now had for 10 years would put the viability of the club at risk and that auditors would refuse to sign off on our accounts. Time has showed that she was lying through her teeth but in the meeting there was no way to argue against her. 

The side in favour of American ownership has the backing of the individuals currently controlling the club and the PR resources they can muster. At the moment no one has stood up and made a case for the fan ownership and what it has achieved over the past seven years. If that continues it's pretty much guaranteed the members will give the club away. 

[bobbybingo]

9 minutes ago, steelboy said:

I went to a Well Society meeting years about expanding to a 14 team league with a 6-8 split. At the beginning of the meeting virtually everyone in attendance was against the proposal. Two hours later due to bullshit, lies and spin from Leeann Dempster everyone in attendance apart from three people voted for it. With a straight face she told the meeting that the 12 team league set up with 1 relegation place and 1 playoff place that we have now had for 10 years would put the viability of the club at risk and that auditors would refuse to sign off on our accounts. Time has showed that she was lying through her teeth but in the meeting there was no way to argue against her. 

The side in favour of American ownership has the backing of the individuals currently controlling the club and the PR resources they can muster. At the moment no one has stood up and made a case for the fan ownership and what it has achieved over the past seven years. If that continues it's pretty much guaranteed the members will give the club away. 

Ok. So the answer to my question is, no - the membership's vote will determine whether any vote goes through or not.

Yes or no - would you, under any circumstances, be prepared to consider giving up fan ownership?

[santheman]

18 minutes ago, steelboy said:

I went to a Well Society meeting years about expanding to a 14 team league with a 6-8 split. At the beginning of the meeting virtually everyone in attendance was against the proposal. Two hours later due to bullshit, lies and spin from Leeann Dempster everyone in attendance apart from three people voted for it. With a straight face she told the meeting that the 12 team league set up with 1 relegation place and 1 playoff place that we have now had for 10 years would put the viability of the club at risk and that auditors would refuse to sign off on our accounts. Time has showed that she was lying through her teeth but in the meeting there was no way to argue against her. 

The side in favour of American ownership has the backing of the individuals currently controlling the club and the PR resources they can muster. At the moment no one has stood up and made a case for the fan ownership and what it has achieved over the past seven years. If that continues it's pretty much guaranteed the members will give the club away. 

It's no secret that the WS board would prefer to retain 51% of the shares but they're also not stupid enough to reject any offer of inward investment out of hand before hearing what it is.

That offer will eventually be put to the members and it will be up to us to decide what we vote for, not any one individual

The various WS board members will no doubt have their own individual views the same as us but I'm sure any recommendations they put forward will have the best interests of the club at heart.

I'd also expect some kind of open forums where people can ask questions and express their views prior to any vote.

[steelboy]

18 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

 

Yes or no - would you, under any circumstances, be prepared to consider giving up fan ownership?

We've already been asked that. If you don't walk about with your eyes closed you'll know it's easy to get people to vote against their own interests. 

What I'm expecting is an offer where we initially go equal with the American and it leaves McMahon, Weir, Dickie etc with the swing vote. 

It's worth remembering that the Society used own 76% of the club and sold 5% at a huge discount not long ago. That reduced the Society's legal status as majority owner and it would be interesting to know who bought the shares. 

[bobbybingo]

4 minutes ago, steelboy said:

We've already been asked that. If you don't walk about with your eyes closed you'll know it's easy to get people to vote against their own interests. 

What I'm expecting is an offer where we initially go equal with the American and it leaves McMahon, Weir, Dickie etc with the swing vote. 

It's worth remembering that the Society used own 76% of the club and sold 5% at a huge discount not long ago. That reduced the Society's legal status as majority owner and it would be interesting to know who bought the shares. 

The model we have gives Society members the right to vote on the future ownership of the club. The fact that you disagree with how some will vote and believe folk are easily manipulated, clueless morons doesn't render that model flawed or meaningless. 

Can't help you with the name of the person who bought those shares, but you're probably looking for someone sporting a top hat and a black, twirly moustsche.

[Great Balls of Shire]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

I went to a Well Society meeting years about expanding to a 14 team league with a 6-8 split. At the beginning of the meeting virtually everyone in attendance was against the proposal. Two hours later due to bullshit, lies and spin from Leeann Dempster everyone in attendance apart from three people voted for it. With a straight face she told the meeting that the 12 team league set up with 1 relegation place and 1 playoff place that we have now had for 10 years would put the viability of the club at risk and that auditors would refuse to sign off on our accounts. Time has showed that she was lying through her teeth but in the meeting there was no way to argue against her. 

The side in favour of American ownership has the backing of the individuals currently controlling the club and the PR resources they can muster. At the moment no one has stood up and made a case for the fan ownership and what it has achieved over the past seven years. If that continues it's pretty much guaranteed the members will give the club away. 

This is as good a place as any to say what the ws has achieved and going forward ( without investment) what it can achieve..

[wunderwell]

13 hours ago, santheman said:

They might have had in the past and rightly so but with the election of the new WS board members, what I know of them and what I've heard so far convinces me that we've now got good people on board and they have finally got their act together. One of the board members Jay has posted several insights on P&B to what has been happening behind the scenes so well worth a look. They're actual facts straight  from the horses mouth and not some of the pish being spouted on here by a certain person.

All the rumours and conspiracy theories being banded about on here are just that, and NOTHING will happen without the agreement of the WS members who will all be privy to what final offer (if any) is on the table before being asked to vote on whether to accept it or not.

I doubt anything that doesn't guarantee the WS retaining 51% would succeed unless it was something absolutely spectacular akin to a Euromillions win.

I for one would laugh the "rumoured" 1.5m offer for 51% out of the park and so would anyone else in their right mind.

I sent in some comments that I've been saying for a long time. To which I got I got a reply asking about volunteer work. So first of all through business and 3 kids etc, I have no time for that. I would like the WS to address the points I have raised though.

Sending out a weekly newsletter is far from good enough in 2024.

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/

Cracking site with login facilities and we should be at the same level as this irrespective of supporters numbers.

Why do we not have the same or aim towards the same? Could we not appeal to the support perhaps we have some cracking web developers that could take this on?

To generate more monies to the WS you just can't stand outside with a bucket and send a weekly mailchimp.

 

[santheman]

8 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

I sent in some comments that I've been saying for a long time. To which I got I got a reply asking about volunteer work. So first of all through business and 3 kids etc, I have no time for that. I would like the WS to address the points I have raised though.

Sending out a weekly newsletter is far from good enough in 2024.

https://www.foundationofhearts.org/

Cracking site with login facilities and we should be at the same level as this irrespective of supporters numbers.

Why do we not have the same or aim towards the same? Could we not appeal to the support perhaps we have some cracking web developers that could take this on?

To generate more monies to the WS you just can't stand outside with a bucket and send a weekly mailchimp.

 

A new website giving all that kind of info is near completion according to the WS along with new ideas on fundraising.

As I said earlier the new board are starting to make their presence felt.

 

[wunderwell]

2 minutes ago, santheman said:

A new website giving all that kind of info is near completion according to the WS along with new ideas on fundraising.

As I said earlier the new board are starting to make their presence felt.

 

Excellent stuff that be a real good addition

[wellgirl]

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

You are still entitled to a vote.

Sorry, but it needs to be asked.............have you changed email address?  Have you checked your spam/junk folders? Try ringing the Society. These problems do need to be sorted out. I'd hope, in any event, someone from the Society has/would PM you. No doubt there are others like you.

We have to be patient in the short term, to give the Society time to work up its proposal. After a period of torpor, things have improved since the Society elections.

 

Why are people entitled to a vote if they aren't paying into the well society? 

 

[steelboy]

8 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Why are people entitled to a vote if they aren't paying into the well society? 

 

I'm sure I've told you this before but I'll post it again.  

Every adult Well Society member owns one voting share. No one can lose their share or sell or transfer it. 

[joewarkfanclub]

10 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Why are people entitled to a vote if they aren't paying into the well society? 

 

Because under the initial rules you didnt have to.

My initial stake was £300 for full membership. I was happy to pay that as I had the money available and wasnt buying a season ticket at that time.

There were other tiers of membership with far higher subscriptions than mine. I think the top level was £1500 if I recall correctly whereby you got all sorts of other benefits.

The rules changed later to smaller monthly subscriptions to allow those who were able to give a little more often to join.

I now pay monthly, but didnt for quite a long time.

I think its only fair that anyone who gave money under the rules at the time have their right to vote protected.

[wellgirl]

3 minutes ago, steelboy said:

I'm sure I've told you this before but I'll post it again.  

Every adult Well Society member owns one voting share. No one can lose their share or sell or transfer it. 

I don't think you have but thanks for the clarification 

[Kmcalpin]

4 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Why are people entitled to a vote if they aren't paying into the well society? 

Thems the rules. Just to clarify though that there are 2 distinct categories of "non payers". Those who fully paid the original target sum eg Steel membership level in one lump sum or several smaller lump sums and secondly those who were paying by monthly instalments and stopped. To a large extent, this arose because of widespread confusion and ambiguity when the Society changed the subscription system to monthly sums, whether or not you had fully paid up the initial sum in full. 

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

My initial stake was £300 for full membership. I was happy to pay that as I had the money available and wasnt buying a season ticket at that time.

There were other tiers of membership with far higher subscriptions than mine. I think the top level was £1500 if I recall correctly whereby you got all sorts of other benefits.

The rules changed later to smaller monthly subscriptions to allow those who were able to give a little more often to join.

I now pay monthly, but didnt for quite a long time.

I contacted the Society several times about this situation over the years, but nothing was ever done. I'm sure quite a bit of potential income was lost as result.  As you say the initial plan was for members to pay in a lump sum or instalments until certain levels were achieved (Steel, Claret, Amber?). These levels attracted certain levels of benefit as you say. I'm exactly the same boat as you. 

Following the early launch, the Society moved to a monthly subscription model, but this was never communicated to original members. Those who had reached the initial levels were never contacted about the switchover. We were never told that we could, or would be encouraged, to contribute over and above the intial levels.  

Matters do seem to be improving now.    

[weeyin]

Looking through my old Society emails, I did receive one from Craig Hughes back in 2015 about the monthly subs. I think, however, that was aimed at international members as it also talked about making it easier for us to donate with the new Paypal option.

[santheman]

They've definitely missed out on revenues by not targeting members who paid the original lump sums to become a member and who would have probably been happy to top that up with ongoing monthly contributions.

With the new board focused on income generation hopefully that's one of the things they can pursue.

[wellgirl]

1 minute ago, santheman said:

They've definitely missed out on revenues by not targeting members who paid the original lump sums to become a member and who would have probably been happy to top that up with ongoing monthly contributions.

With the new board focused on income generation hopefully that's one of the things they can pursue.

I agree but surely it's pretty well known that members can pay monthly contributions. I've been paying a monthly contribution since 2018. 

[santheman]

29 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I agree but surely it's pretty well known that members can pay monthly contributions. I've been paying a monthly contribution since 2018. 

Oh it's pretty well known but if you don't actively follow up on it on a regular basis then folks tend to forget about it which I think has happened. I make a monthly contribution but other than a couple of generic emails over the years I've never been asked directly if I would consider increasing my amount( which I would and have done)

If it was a charity you would be getting inundated with begging texts/emails but maybe the WS felt that they didn't want to keep going back to the same people all the time, I don't know.

Hopefully with all the recent publicity and investment talk and the need to increase WS funds more people who maybe paid the original £300 but didn't know about, or take up the offer of monthly contributions might consider it now.

 

[Kmcalpin]

16 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I agree but surely it's pretty well known that members can pay monthly contributions. I've been paying a monthly contribution since 2018. 

Yes, it is pretty well known now but it certainly was not widely known until a year or two ago. As has been said above, original members who paid by lump sum were never contacted about paying monthly contributions. The fundamental change from some members paying their subscription monthly to all members, irrespective of status, being encouraged to make monthly contributions was never ever advertised until very recently.  Thats was a huge and costly failing. The move away from a  dedicated website and lack of communication was at the root cause of this. "Lapsed members", like myself, for want of a better term were never contacted directly.

To finish on a positive note, things have certainly improved now, and thats the importnat thing. .

[steelboy]

I didn't sign up to pay monthly because I didn't want my wages going to repaying John Boyle and Les Hutchinson.

Even now if the Society wants more funds it's only to have the cash in reserve to give the club. For me if the club has enough money to afford Harry Paton, Jon Obika, Andy Halliday and Oli Shaw they definitely don't need any more of my money. It's like someone booking a week in Ibiza then asking for a tap because they're skint.