New Investment Options

[FirParkCornerExile]

2 hours ago, wellfan said:

Maybe, but why should it have taken until now for the Society to up its game? Why wasn't the Society actively examining and proposing meaningful ways to increase the membership and raise further inward investment? Why has it taken until now for the Society to confirm that 3800 members don't correlate with 3800 active monthly direct debits? Has the Society been in cruise control for many years, resting on its laurels until it felt a threat from the Club? Both the Society and Club are within their rights to propose anything concerning ownership and inward investment, and perhaps it's just that the latter got its finger out first. I am a monthly paying Society member and have been for a long time, but there are so many other unanswered questions and points of speculation to be had from both sides, which has me questioning what's going on behind the scenes. This whole thread is becoming a tit-for-tat nonsense. Keep it up, everyone. 

100% correct why should fans have faith in promises made that could have been delivered over the last 5 or 6 years. I am not convinced by the American interest either but ill wait until I see actual facts rather than what someone down the pub thinks.  

[FirParkCornerExile]

2 hours ago, wellgirl said:

As other people have said - where are the Well society going to find other money from? Unless there are cash reserves somewhere. I know it's possible that they could ask for extra donations from members. My whole issue with fan ownership is that there simply aren't enough members to make it work. No more than that - and I'm a member. 

Buy bigger buckets for collections 😉

[Mccus28]

3 hours ago, wellgirl said:

See all this "from what you have heard" - that's just more rumours clearly. See unless people know something as fact - maybe it shouldn't be shared. 

But he loves just making stuff up so let him be.

I assume he sits in his house with a tinfoil hat on shouting a sky sports news!!!!!

[FirParkCornerExile]

2 hours ago, wellgirl said:

As other people have said - where are the Well society going to find other money from? Unless there are cash reserves somewhere. I know it's possible that they could ask for extra donations from members. My whole issue with fan ownership is that there simply aren't enough members to make it work. No more than that - and I'm a member. 

Fan ownership can completely work but without increased subscriptions the level at which we operate will fall over the years ahead. Rattling buckets isnt the answer. However if the Well Society doesnt raise significantly more money over the coming years what money we do raise will permit us to do less. If income remains static or shows minimal improvement and costs rise the level at which we operate must eventually suffer, its not rocket science. So its up the the Well Society to let us see their fund projections and business plan and what its expected to raise over the next 5 years and convince us they are up to the challenge as well as answering the question if its so straightforward why have they not made those moves before now..

[texanwellfan]

9 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Fan ownership can completely work but without increased subscriptions the level at which we operate will fall over the years ahead. Rattling buckets isnt the answer. However if the Well Society doesnt raise significantly more money over the coming years what money we do raise will permit us to do less. If income remains static or shows minimal improvement and costs rise the level at which we operate must eventually suffer, its not rocket science. So its up the the Well Society to let us see their fund projections and business plan and what its expected to raise over the next 5 years and convince us they are up to the challenge as well as answering the question if its so straightforward why have they not made those moves before now..

That’s a good point you raise. As well as knowing what proposed investment option is (yes vote) we also need to know what WS investment option is (no vote) in order to make a fully knowledgeable decision we need to know what both options mean for the future. I also don’t know if accepting the option currently under discussion means we can’t entertain any further investment or would MFC still be able to attract and accept further investment? Or perhaps that part of the current proposal that the investors would seek further investment from their sources. This is not about fan ownership or not it’s about ensuring the continued existence of MFC and that could be fan ownership or maybe not? Perhaps some hybrid? 

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

By exploring other revenue streams not currently being tapped.

No different than the investor who is looking for control of the club.

The money he intends to invest wont be free. He wants it back with interest. So he will have to find ways of getting more money into the club. Otherwise he and we dont make any more money.

The advantage he has at the moment is that he comes from a corporate background and clearly has experience in that field.

That doesnt mean to say that there arent smart peoplenon the WS Board noe though with ideas of their own.

Do you know that for a fact? Not saying it is not his plan, but why are you so sure? Other than 'that is how it usually works'

[Stuwell2]

Initially there were two potential investors/partners the Australian one - which had a football background but would have wanted total control - has either withdrawn or was rejected as not being the type of model thought to got with our clubs ethos. Leaving us with the one with limited football acumen but a very good business/media acumen which leads me to believe there is something about our club that they feel they can work with to get value from for the good of both parties (was going to say exploit but that would have gotten certain folk excited) without requiring full control. 

All will become clear shortly but I feel that it’s good that after being here last week (and possibly is still here discussing things) we haven’t heard that they have walked away or things are not good. 

[wunderwell]

7 hours ago, steelboy said:

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.

We've lost 2.65 million in the last 2 accounting periods. With a third mill loss to come.

[wunderwell]

7 hours ago, steelboy said:

There have already been 45 or so UK clubs bought by Americans. There aren't many left to buy and we attractive because  (1) we run at a profit (2) have no debt other than to the Well Society who will never call it in (3) McMahon has obviously told them that the Well Society members are stupid enough to effectively hand the club for free.

From what I have heard they intend to make a documentary series as part of an expansion of their Hollywood business. 

 

But 1. We don't run at a profit.

[steelboy]

1 hour ago, wunderwell said:

But 1. We don't run at a profit.

Over the 7 years of fan ownership we have an overall profit of £2 million.

Compared to most other clubs we are doing extremely well. I'm not going to check but we won't be far off breaking even over the past 20 years since we came out of administration.

[wunderwell]

4 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Over the 7 years of fan ownership we have an overall profit of £2 million.

Compared to most other clubs we are doing extremely well. I'm not going to check but we won't be far off breaking even over the past 20 years since we came out of administration.

Two cup finals and the sale of David Turnbull to thank.
Neither of those events look likely soon unless they can convince Lennon to sign an extended contract.

[FirParkCornerExile]

26 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

Two cup finals and the sale of David Turnbull to thank.
Neither of those events look likely soon unless they can convince Lennon to sign an extended contract.

Exactly its a precarious operating model. We need more regular definite funds not funds that are rely on the exception rather than the rule. The WS need to tell us how they will achieve that.

[wellgirl]

1 hour ago, wunderwell said:

Two cup finals and the sale of David Turnbull to thank.
Neither of those events look likely soon unless they can convince Lennon to sign an extended contract.

This 

[joewarkfanclub]

4 hours ago, dennyc said:

Do you know that for a fact? Not saying it is not his plan, but why are you so sure? Other than 'that is how it usually works'

I dont know anything for a fact.

Only the investor and the club know what the deal is (or should).

But some of our fans seem to think that outside investment is some sort of no risk Nirvana where we never have to pay any money back and we can instantly spend more money on players.

Given how negative many are being about fan ownership, I think its important that someone highlights the risks on the other side of the fence.

I do want to re-iterate though, that I wont make my own mind up one way or the other until I see the detail of the deal.

 

[StAndrew7]

12 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

I dont know anything for a fact.

Only the investor and the club know what the deal is (or should).

But some of our fans seem to think that outside investment is some sort of no risk Nirvana where we never have to pay any money back and we can instantly spend more money on players.

Given how negative many are being about fan ownership, I think its important that someone highlights the risks on the other side of the fence.

I do want to re-iterate though, that I wont make my own mind up one way or the other until I see the detail of the deal.

 

This is it exactly for me. The club has always (since administration etc. anyway) operated under a model where we need to sell a player every other year to keep the books balanced, or sell a Turnbull every three or so.

The WS' funds essentially became a way for the club to keep things balanced in leaner times after Les came in, and that's absolutely worked and kept the club afloat.

I would argue that's not necessarily true fan ownership, which is why I'm intrigued to see what the new WS board have to offer in terms of growing that to something even more meaningful.

However, there's also no reason that the work they're doing can't be done alongside an investor who wants to work with the WS to do that, using their own business experience and skills to supplement what is already there.

My line in the sand for all of this has always been 51/49 ownership in favour of the fans. If it goes beyond that (even if it takes years, or is performance based etc.) it's a no from me.

Also, there is far, far more to any potential takeover than can be acutely summarised on a forum like this. Like I'm enjoying the debate and discussion but we also need to know a significant amount of what we're reading here and in the press is speculation.

e.g. The actual, financial valuation of the club and its assets (rather than the emotional one we as fans put on it) calculated by forensic accountants/finance specialists and then adding in any potential clauses the WS want around ensuring that if they lost majority ownership, there is first refusal on the investor's shares if/when they choose to go or sell up.

This is all, of course, dependent on it getting to the stage of there being an actual offer for the club that the Exec Board deems worth considering. Exclusivity of negotiations doesn't guarantee that will happen.

One (final, I promise) point; none of the potential investors we have attracted so far are offering to put "transformational" amounts of money into the club. So whatever happens in that regard, I believe the WS will have to continue in some capacity to support the club in leaner times.

Like you said @joewarkfanclub we need to be very careful when coming to a decision. Personally, I think there is a model where the WS and any investor(s) could work together (whilst the WS/fans retains majority ownership under whatever structure is negotiated) to build the former and help the latter get a return on their investment, leaving the club in a stronger position than it was. There is nuance to that which will take time to work out, if it is indeed an option, but the devil, as always, will be in the detail.

 

[wunderwell]

32 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

This is it exactly for me. The club has always (since administration etc. anyway) operated under a model where we need to sell a player every other year to keep the books balanced, or sell a Turnbull every three or so.

The WS' funds essentially became a way for the club to keep things balanced in leaner times after Les came in, and that's absolutely worked and kept the club afloat.

I would argue that's not necessarily true fan ownership, which is why I'm intrigued to see what the new WS board have to offer in terms of growing that to something even more meaningful.

However, there's also no reason that the work they're doing can't be done alongside an investor who wants to work with the WS to do that, using their own business experience and skills to supplement what is already there.

My line in the sand for all of this has always been 51/49 ownership in favour of the fans. If it goes beyond that (even if it takes years, or is performance based etc.) it's a no from me.

Also, there is far, far more to any potential takeover than can be acutely summarised on a forum like this. Like I'm enjoying the debate and discussion but we also need to know a significant amount of what we're reading here and in the press is speculation.

e.g. The actual, financial valuation of the club and its assets (rather than the emotional one we as fans put on it) calculated by forensic accountants/finance specialists and then adding in any potential clauses the WS want around ensuring that if they lost majority ownership, there is first refusal on the investor's shares if/when they choose to go or sell up.

This is all, of course, dependent on it getting to the stage of there being an actual offer for the club that the Exec Board seems is worth considering. Exclusivity of negotiations doesn't guarantee that will happen.

One (final, I promise) point; none of the potential investors we have attracted so far are offering to put "transformational" amounts of money into the club. So whatever happens in that regard, I believe the WS will have to continue in some capacity to support the club in leaner times.

Like you said @joewarkfanclub we need to be very careful when coming to a decision. Personally, I think there is a model where the WS and any investor(s) could work together (whilst the WS/fans retains majority ownership under whatever structure is negotiated) to build the former and help the latter get a return on their investment, leaving the club in a stronger position than it was. There is nuance to that which will take time to work out, if it is indeed an option, but the devil, as always, will be in the detail.

 

I agree, if it's truly fan ownership and the Well Society has controlling interest. (Which is now ceased at Companies House, anyone else notice that?)
Then we should appoint the board. Not 2/5 board members.
The fan ownership simply isn't real. It's a funding mechanism for the club with no real say.

[StAndrew7]

18 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

I agree, if it's truly fan ownership and the Well Society has controlling interest. (Which is now ceased at Companies House, anyone else notice that?)
Then we should appoint the board. Not 2/5 board members.
The fan ownership simply isn't real. It's a funding mechanism for the club with no real say.

The Companies House thing happens every year I think, if you look back at previous accounting periods. There's nothing out of the ordinary there.

I suspect this year it will also be dependent on the changes to the board structure agreed at the AGM.

And agreed, the WS is essentially a piggy bank right now. Far removed from what it was initially set up to be. I believe that shift was part of the deal with Les; although as I'm not a member I can't confirm if that was ever voted on?

[Kmcalpin]

59 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

This is it exactly for me. The club has always (since administration etc. anyway) operated under a model where we need to sell a player every other year to keep the books balanced, or sell a Turnbull every three or so.

Good post. 

Irrespective of how its been achieved, ie through development of the Academy, we have always been a selling club. Whatever investment model we adopt in future, that will never change. Thats not to say, of course, that we shouldn't maximise other income streams. Of course we should.

[StAndrew7]

13 hours ago, wunderwell said:

Two cup finals and the sale of David Turnbull to thank.
Neither of those events look likely soon unless they can convince Lennon to sign an extended contract.

He did.

He's here until the summer or 2026, most likely to be sold next January or the summer of 2025 I would imagine.

[FirParkCornerExile]

6 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

He did.

He's here until the summer or 2026, most likely to be sold next January or the summer of 2025 I would imagine.

is lennon millers contract extension not up in summer 2025, if so he will go this summer.

[Well Well]

On 4/18/2024 at 2:00 PM, steelboy said:

The most recent club accounts list our assets at £8 million so that's the minimum but it's obviously more than that due to our status as a top flight club and potential for player sales.

It's worth remembering that the Americans don't actually intend to buy any shares. The proposal seems to be that the club will issue new shares that are given to the Americans in return for working capital (which they can later withdraw at will).

 

 

So you don't actually know

[texanwellfan]

47 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

is lennon millers contract extension until summer 2025, if so he will go this summer.

It’s extended  to summer if 2026. That was done in Nov of last year. Tried To paste picture but file too large. You can google to confirm. 

[grizzlyg]

55 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

is lennon millers contract extension not up in summer 2025, if so he will go this summer.

Nope, he signed an extension till summer 2026

[wellgirl]

43 minutes ago, Well Well said:

So you don't actually know

No. He doesn't. He's just repeating stuff from "sources". 

 

[steelboy]

45 minutes ago, Well Well said:

So you don't actually know

I've read that issuing new shares was discussed at the club AGM.