New Investment Options

[dennyc]

If investment is dependent upon Barmack securing a majority share holding then that will require to be confirmed when details of any offer is made public. So why waste time and money hiding that stipulation from the outset. I think any such demand would likely be a deal breaker as far as Society members are concerned. And without Society members approval no bid can succeed. There is no way round that. Steelboy’s Conspiracy theories aside. 

But nothing Barmack has said so far suggests that he is seeking a majority holding. All such talk has come from others, who do have the Club’s interests at heart but also have a passionate wish to retain fan control. Fair enough. But there is no evidence to support their view other than ‘investors are always looking for a financial return’ and ‘it is always the case that’. If there is any factual evidence that Barmack wants overall control, please share it so we can all be ‘in the know’. 

Given the challenge and obstacles that securing ownership of a fan owned football club present, why on earth would any experienced businessman go down that route as opposed to seeking control over the likes of Ross County or St Johnstone, whose owners are reportedly looking to step back? It makes no sense. Perhaps we should just take his comments at face value until we know otherwise.

[Spiderpig]

43 minutes ago, dennyc said:

II think any such demand would likely be a deal breaker as far as Society members are concerned. And without Society members approval no bid can succeed. There is no way round that. Steelboy’s Conspiracy theories aside. 
 

The WS members opinions from what's been said so far don't seem to have been canvassed or taken into account by any communication or votes etc for any decision taken by the club re finances, infrastructure improvement etc since the WS was formed, what makes you think that approach will change now?

 

[wellgirl]

38 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

The WS members opinions from what's been said so far don't seem to have been canvassed or taken into account by any communication or votes etc for any decision taken by the club re finances, infrastructure improvement etc since the WS was formed, what makes you think that approach will change now?

 

Maybe the well society have to take a share of responsibility for that as well.

[wellgirl]

54 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

The WS members opinions from what's been said so far don't seem to have been canvassed or taken into account by any communication or votes etc for any decision taken by the club re finances, infrastructure improvement etc since the WS was formed, what makes you think that approach will change now?

 

Because it was made clear by the well society that members would have the final say as to whether the society keep majority control or not. 

[Spiderpig]

12 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Because it was made clear by the well society that members would have the final say as to whether the society keep majority control or not. 

As the majority shareholders the WS members having the final say on any major decision taken by the club over the years should have been normal practice. But from what the members have said including yourself the consultation / communication etc has been zero, so as I said is there any confidence that this approach will change as it needs to?

[wellgirl]

3 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

As the majority shareholders the WS members having the final say on any major decision taken by the club over the years should have been normal practice. But from what the members have said including yourself the consultation / communication etc has been zero, so as I said is there any confidence that this approach will change as it needs to?

The vote will surely be legally binding. But yeah - I've been paying into the society for 6 years and I know very little about them - that's not their fault but all I've ever had is a weekly newsletter and that only started a couple of years ago. 

[bobbybingo]

5 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

As the majority shareholders the WS members having the final say on any major decision taken by the club over the years should have been normal practice. But from what the members have said including yourself the consultation / communication etc has been zero, so as I said is there any confidence that this approach will change as it needs to?

Can someone buy majority control without a vote from WS members?

[wellgirl]

4 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

Can someone buy majority control without a vote from WS members?

I think no is the answer to that 

[bobbybingo]

2 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I think no is the answer to that 

That was my understanding too.

All kinds of arguments and complaints can be made about the Society's lack of communication or lack of say in big decisions over the years, and folk can claim that certain people are set on engineering a certain outcome, but if the final decision has to be taken according to the result of a membrship vote, legally, then there's no getting away from that. That some folk won't like that decision is inevitable, whichever way it goes.

[Pepper]

If those in charge of the Club are so in favour of retaining fan ownership why did they effectively cut the Society out by seeking direct outside investment that would likely require the Society to relinquish majority control?

The suggestion that any investor is not going to want full control is laughable. Why have the Society vote othereise? Speculation or not do people really need to have it spelt out to see what's in the pipeline? 

IMO the Chief Exec and Chairman should have shown the Society as majority shareholder more respect and at least challenged those involved to attract additional investment and up funds. The freshening up of the Society board gives me a lot of confidence that they are more than capable of achieving something very positive. The timing of the whole thing is awful and has almost set the Society up to fail. 

I think it is lost on a awful lot of people just how significant majority fan ownership is and how it was a once in lifetime of the Club occurrence. Giving that up for anything short of a truly spectacular level of investment is crazy.

[wellgirl]

2 minutes ago, Pepper said:

If those in charge of the Club are so in favour of retaining fan ownership why did they effectively cut the Society out by seeking direct outside investment that would likely require the Society to relinquish majority control?

The suggestion that any investor is not going to want full control is laughable. Why have the Society vote othereise? Speculation or not do people really need to have it spelt out to see what's in the pipeline? 

IMO the Chief Exec and Chairman should have shown the Society as majority shareholder more respect and at least challenged those involved to attract additional investment and up funds. The freshening up of the Society board gives me a lot of confidence that they are more than capable of achieving something very positive. The timing of the whole thing is awful and has almost set the Society up to fail. 

I think it is lost on a awful lot of people just how significant majority fan ownership is and how it was a once in lifetime of the Club occurrence. Giving that up for anything short of a truly spectacular level of investment is crazy.

The society are supposed to be putting together a funding proposal as far as I'm aware. 

[Pepper]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

The society are supposed to be putting together a funding proposal as far as I'm aware. 

Yeah, which makes the decision to effectively pit the Society's proposal against an outside investor's proposal even more bizarre. 

[bobbybingo]

2 minutes ago, Pepper said:

If those in charge of the Club are so in favour of retaining fan ownership why did they effectively cut the Society out by seeking direct outside investment that would likely require the Society to relinquish majority control?

The suggestion that any investor is not going to want full control is laughable. Why have the Society vote othereise? Speculation or not do people really need to have it spelt out to see what's in the pipeline? 

IMO the Chief Exec and Chairman should have shown the Society as majority shareholder more respect and at least challenged those involved to attract additional investment and up funds. The freshening up of the Society board gives me a lot of confidence that they are more than capable of achieving something very positive. The timing of the whole thing is awful and has almost set the Society up to fail. 

I think it is lost on a awful lot of people just how significant majority fan ownership is and how it was a once in lifetime of the Club occurrence. Giving that up for anything short of a truly spectacular level of investment is crazy.

If it's left to the Well Society to find additional investment, where would that come from, given the idea any investor is not going to want full control is laughable, in your opinion? Or do you want them to find thousands of new members willing to donate money on a regular basis?

[Pepper]

1 minute ago, bobbybingo said:

If it's left to the Well Society to find additional investment, where would that come from, given the idea any investor is not going to want full control is laughable, in your opinion? Or do you want them to find thousands of new members willing to donate money on a regular basis?

The point I'm making is that the Society, at the very least, should have been given the chance to raise that investment whatever form it may take, without being undermined by those running the Club. 

[bobbybingo]

7 minutes ago, Pepper said:

The point I'm making is that the Society, at the very least, should have been given the chance to raise that investment whatever form it may take, without being undermined by those running the Club. 

It sounds very like yourself, and some others on here, have taken the stance that any outside investor should be hunted, even before any discussions as to their intent, because their intent will inevitably be bad. 

You might well be right, but it can't be that simple. The Well Society is a large group of individuals, so not everyone will share that view, obviously. And the glaring questions remain - whre will the Society drum up substantial no strings attached investment, and why wait till now to start doing something about it?

[Kmcalpin]

42 minutes ago, Pepper said:

If those in charge of the Club are so in favour of retaining fan ownership why did they effectively cut the Society out by seeking direct outside investment that would likely require the Society to relinquish majority control?

We'll find out details in  due course, so need to get our knickers in a twist just yet. 

With regard to your point, we should all remember that, as things stand, Society reps on the board outnumber other directors by 2:1. However thats a good question. The 2 Society members on the Board, Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely are effectively wearing 2 hats. By default, the Society wasn't cut out. 

[joewarkfanclub]

This debate really is just going round in circles.

I guess thats what happens when we have no game to discuss and a vacuum of information.

FWIW, although my preference is to remain majority fan owned and I am sceptical about this investor for now, I'm more than happy to wait and see the detail before making a final decision.

There are one or two things worth repeating though.

Although Ive been a member of the Well Society since its inception, there have been many things around it I have not been satisfied by.

It has always seemed to me that the Executive Board have tried to keep the Society at arms length and only really consulted it when it needed to. Happy to have the safety net it provided, but really viewed it as an inconvenience. Now that might not be entirely fair, but thats how it has felt, to me at least.

I sense there has been a change since the last WS Board elections and that some power and control has been wrestled back, and Im keen to see what direction that takes now that there might finally be a chance to make the fan ownership model mean something more tangible.

Obviously the timing of this bid moves the timeframe forward for the Society and they will need to act quickly to get their ideas across and show that they can work.

Re the bid, I dont know where the figures came from or whether they are correct, but for argument sake, a bid of £1.5m over a specified period isnt the kind of offer thats going to get me excited, and its certainly not the kind of figure that should see us selling controlling interest of the club for. Our club is worth considerably more than £3m regardless of how shit or desperate anyone thinks we are at the monent.

Its not a figure we can turn our noses up at though, and if there was a way of getting that kind of investment into the club whilst keeping majority shareholding and  the promise that we will still keep a majority share of player trading, then it might be worth looking at.

At the end of the day, we need a deal which leaves us with more money coming into the club, not less. So whilst £1.5m now seems appealing, if  the amount we bring in for player trading goes down, there doesnt seem much point.

Its up to Mr Barmack to demonstrate he has the business skills and knowledge to grow the business and allow him to do that whilst making a profit on his own investment. 

In the meantime, I dont think a figure of £1.5m over 3 or even 5 years is revenue that is necessarily outwith the reach of the Society. But they dont have a lot of time to show it can be done and would be a viable alternative.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

PS. I agree with David, in that if this deal goes through (and I might yet vote for it) and the Society no longer has majority shareholding, I will no longer feel the need to continue my subscription.

In my opinion, if you give away majority shareholding the purpose of the Society no longer exists and you may as well wind it up.

Not sure if the Board or investors hace considered that.......

[wellgirl]

20 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

PS. I agree with David, in that if this deal goes through (and I might yet vote for it) and the Society no longer has majority shareholding, I will no longer feel the need to continue my subscription.

In my opinion, if you give away majority shareholding the purpose of the Society no longer exists and you may as well wind it up.

Not sure if the Board or investors hace considered that.......

So fans can't have less than 50 per cent share of a club? If fan ownership was working Motherwell wouldn't be looking for outside investment. 

[weeyin]

8 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

So fans can't have less than 50 per cent share of a club? If fan ownership was working Motherwell wouldn't be looking for outside investment. 

They can, but I'm not sure how that fits in with the Society's remit to be a fan-owned club, or if the Society can even legally exist in its current form if it becomes impossible for it to ever be the majority stakeholder.

 

[steelboy]

@dennyc

St Johnstone have already been sold in what looks to be a deal to carve up their valuable land between an American and the Browns. 

Ross County are a village team and are only financially viable because they are a subsidiary of MacGregor's larger business. 

[Spiderpig]

1 minute ago, weeyin said:

They can, but I'm not sure how that fits in with the Society's remit to be a fan-owned club, or if the Society can even legally exist in its current form if it becomes impossible for it to ever be the majority stakeholder.

 

The whole concepts of a " fan owned " club was laudable but in Motherwell's case given our fanbase limitations it was never going to be a long term sustainable operating model. If we were a league 2 club say then it might work but never on the financial demands of a full time premiership team.

And it seems that the board have finally realised this hence the search for outside investment, and for me the price of that investment if it happens would be majority control of the club, Investors want their returns.

If the WS members reject whatever proposals re giving up majority control that may be put before them as is their right, without  having any alternatives in place then I can see a potential funding crisis ahead for the club.

[steelboy]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

 

And it seems that the board have finally realised this hence the search for outside investment, and for me the price of that investment if it happens would be majority control of the club, Investors want their returns.

.

The finances are fine. We have made a good profit during a difficult period.

To me it looks like the clique that have run the club in various guises for 20 years don't like the fact that the majority of the Well Society board are now supporters from the East Stand and decided they would rather privatise than see working class fans have a real say in how the club is run.

[dennyc]

2 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

As the majority shareholders the WS members having the final say on any major decision taken by the club over the years should have been normal practice. But from what the members have said including yourself the consultation / communication etc has been zero, so as I said is there any confidence that this approach will change as it needs to?

I think this is a valid comment regarding the way the Society has operated in the past. Little consultation and even less communication. 

But this is different and has a legal implication. The Society owns a majority share holding so by law they must surely have a say if the Club is to be sold. So whilst it may be that some Society Board Members would prefer to continue to make major decisions without referral to the Members, in this situation I don't think they can. And they have openly said the Members will have the final say. Again, that is totally different from previous decision making. New Board members have also given that assurance.

15 minutes ago, steelboy said:

@dennyc

St Johnstone have already been sold in what looks to be a deal to carve up their valuable land between an American and the Browns. 

Ross County are a village team and are only financially viable because they are a subsidiary of MacGregor's larger business. 

As you are well aware these were only examples on non fan owned Clubs. You have avoided the real question. Why would anybody take on the challenges of buying a fan owned Club when other simpler, less challenging options are available? Clubs worldwide that could be bought without needing any fan buy in.

[wellgirl]

12 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I think this is a valid comment regarding the way the Society has operated in the past. Little consultation and even less communication. 

But this is different and has a legal implication. The Society owns a majority share holding so by law they must surely have a say if the Club is to be sold. So whilst it may be that some Society Board Members would prefer to continue to make major decisions without referral to the Members, in this situation I don't think they can. And they have openly said the Members will have the final say. Again, that is totally different from previous decision making. New Board members have also given that assurance.

As you are well aware these were only examples on non fan owned Clubs. You have avoided the real question. Why would anybody take on the challenges of buying a fan owned Club when other simpler, less challenging options are available? Clubs worldwide that could be bought without needing any fan buy in.

And the proposed investor has said he was looking at other clubs before he settled on Motherwell