New Investment Options

[texanwellfan]

I’m sure I’ve read several times that the WS were working on an alternate proposal or at least a proposal to increase revenue. So seems strange that 3 of the WS board have now resigned. 
 

[Yoshi-1991]

3 hours ago, Villageman said:

Cannot agree with your understanding. He is committing to just less than£2m over 6 years. That is it financially. He also said he and his Organisation will make MFC a more widely known entity which should mean benefits. Nowhere does it say those benefits will end up in MFC pockets. My suspicious mind says they will not.

You are right to be suspicious and that is maybe where the problem sits.

I can understand he wants to be vague on some elements but as you say, he needs to show exactly how the club stands to benefit and what that looks like as a revenue stream. 

[wellgirl]

3 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

I’m sure I’ve read several times that the WS were working on an alternate proposal or at least a proposal to increase revenue. So seems strange that 3 of the WS board have now resigned. 
 

I think the 3 who resigned were in favour of the outside investment package. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong 

[bobbybingo]

14 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

I’m sure I’ve read several times that the WS were working on an alternate proposal or at least a proposal to increase revenue. So seems strange that 3 of the WS board have now resigned. 
 

Maybe some were working harder than others.

[StAndrew7]

12 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I think the 3 who resigned were in favour of the outside investment package. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong 

We don't know that for certain, but you would assume that Feely and Dickie are two, we they were part of the "unanimous" decision to back the proposal by the Executive Board. Given that Maureen Downie has resigned as well, it's a safe bet she's the other.

Has Feely resigned yet?

[StAndrew7]

17 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

I’m sure I’ve read several times that the WS were working on an alternate proposal or at least a proposal to increase revenue. So seems strange that 3 of the WS board have now resigned. 
 

My understanding from the Society's statement and a few others I've heard from is that this will be launched fairly soon off the back of yesterday's announcement.

[wunderwell]

Again to play devil's advocate we are going against the guy with a plan and favouring the Society who have no plans.

It's all very well saying it's plain to see there are commercial deals we can do without Barmack but who is going to take us to them?

We as the Well Society do not have a controlling interest in the boardroom.
Start there. Put a plan to the supporters. Build a frigging website.
The Well Society are hopeless bowling club personas leading us downhill towards the Championship.

Solve that and then it is much simpler to tell an ambitious man trying to take us forward but at a pittance, that we do not need him (not his money).

[StAndrew7]

40 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

Again to play devil's advocate we are going against the guy with a plan and favouring the Society who have no plans.

It's all very well saying it's plain to see there are commercial deals we can do without Barmack but who is going to take us to them?

We as the Well Society do not have a controlling interest in the boardroom.
Start there. Put a plan to the supporters. Build a frigging website.
The Well Society are hopeless bowling club personas leading us downhill towards the Championship.

Solve that and then it is much simpler to tell an ambitious man trying to take us forward but at a pittance, that we do not need him (not his money).

To counter that (and by no means is this intended as having a go at you):

Firstly; are we going against a guy with a plan? Where are the details of his sources of funds for his planned investments (other than £330k/year), proposals for increasing revenue, the rates of return on his (and the Society's) ongoing injections of cash into the club? All I've seen on the official statement on the club website and from Barmack directly on P&B are buzzwords and corporate speak, with the odd bit of language around interest in a docu-series about the club. So I ask, genuinely; what plan have you seen that isn't high-level stuff? In my work we look at potential returns of investment very early in processes to prevent clients committing to anything that just doesn't make sense. Our outgoing chairman said at the AGM that we should have external financial experts doing the due diligence on this; has that been carried out and what was the outcome?

To make a decision on whether or not this is suitable, we need details which we either haven't been given yet, or aren't available at all. If it's the former, I'd question why they've not been made available. If it's the latter, I'd question as to why this is even going ahead.

Secondly, The Well Society WERE this for a long time, I absolutely agree; which is exactly why I didn't sign up to become a member until today. I made the decision because, frankly, the Society is going to need everyone to rally around it - even if the proposed investment goes through, otherwise it will cease to exist and our "great wee fan owned club^TM" won't be fan owned any more.

A lot of the decisions made in the last 10 years since Les got involved have been to diminish the influence of the Society, I think that's abundantly clear; removal of the standalone website to a section buried on the Club's, lack of control on the Exec Board and, frankly, previous boards made up of yes men and women, who allowed the Society to essentially become a provider of soft loans to the club rather than being the majority shareholding body it was/is intended to be.

The new board elected in October have been working incredibly hard on their plan, whilst also meeting for 3 or 4 hours at a time to discuss the investment, in their own time as volunteers. I think a 6-month turnaround on this may well be deemed by many as too slow, but the outside factors influencing it all can't be ignored.

They have told us they have a vision and strategic plan and they have said they're going to launch it shortly (before the voting window, or at least to coincide with it starting):

Quote

Having been given sight of the finalised Heads of Terms on 20 May, we have worked at pace to finalise our position on this offer. We anticipate that we will ballot our members on this over two weeks beginning 1 July, which will then allow the Well Society to reflect members’ views in the club’s anticipated shareholder vote. We are currently working on the logistics and more information will be sent to our members in due course.

By this time, we will also share the Society’s plans for the future, if it remains as majority shareholder. These plans have been in development since the beginning of the year, with input from supporters, consultants, football experts and business professionals, and we now aim to expedite the publication of our plans within the necessary timescales.

I think the time to judge the Society board on things like this is in 3 or 4 weeks, when their plan(s) have been published to the membership and wider supporters to better understand them.

[wellgirl]

Would the Well Society's vision and strategic plan have been made available to fans/supporters if there hadn't been this speculation about an outside investment bid? 

[wunderwell]

6 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

To counter that (and by no means is this intended as having a go at you):

Firstly; are we going against a guy with a plan? Where are the details of his planned investments, proposals for increasing revenue, the rates of return on his (and the Society's) ongoing injections of cash into the club? All I've seen on the official statement on the club website and from Barmack directly on P&B are buzzwords and corporate speak, with the odd bit of language around interest in a docu-series about the club. So I ask, genuinely; what plan have you seen that isn't high-level stuff? In my work we look at potential returns of investment very early in processes to prevent clients committing to anything that just doesn't make sense. Our outgoing chairman said at the AGM that we should have external financial experts doing the due diligence on this; has that been carried out and what was the outcome?

To make a decision on whether or not this is suitable, we need details which we either haven't been given yet, or aren't available at all. If it's the former, I'd question why they've not been made available. If it's the latter, I'd question as to why this is even going ahead.

Secondly, The Well Society WERE this for a long time, I absolutely agree; which is exactly why I didn't sign up to become a member until today. I made the decision because, frankly, the Society is going to need everyone to rally around it - even if the proposed investment goes through, otherwise it will cease to exist and our "great wee fan owned club^TM" won't be fan owned any more.

A lot of the decisions made in the last 10 years since Les got involved have been to diminish the influence of the Society, I think that's abundantly clear; removal of the standalone website to a section buried on the Club's, lack of control on the Exec Board and, frankly, previous boards made up of yes men and women, who allowed the Society to essentially become a provider of soft loans to the club rather than being the majority shareholding body it was/is intended to be.

The new board elected in October have been working incredibly hard on their plan, whilst also meeting for 3 or 4 hours at a time to discuss the investment, in their own time as volunteers. I think a 6-month turnaround on this may well be deemed by many as too slow, but the outside factors influencing it all can't be ignored.

They have told us they have a vision and strategic plan and they have said they're going to launch it shortly (before the voting window, or at least to coincide with it starting):

I think the time to judge the Society board on things like this is in 3 or 4 weeks, when their plan(s) have been published to the membership and wider supporters to better understand them.

Nice one and great reply.  Totally no issue with good thought provoking posts that.

If we can get to see the Well Society, stating a plan and then actioning that agreed plan. I would say it would probably be 90 per cent plus that would back them for the future.

Les did treat the WS as a soft loan and therefore at this stage the board is ran by the minority rather than the majority. If we are discussing change then that needs to be first.

As I've said over and over I compare what we have as a society to what Hearts have as a society.

They are ran by 8 volunteers but initially this was 5. Perhaps due to circumstances but they are light years ahead of us. Simply put, volunteers or not, I think we as the fans need a plan at this juncture to put the thoughts of Barmack away. I struggle to vote for a nothing plan. They need to get their vision out prior to rejecting this deal. The supporters deserve to choose a path with informed decisons.

Million per cent we need a specialist accountancy firm on any DD should it get that far.
I went through that process when selling our company. It wasn't exactly cheap though!

[wunderwell]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

Would the Well Society's vision and strategic plan have been made available to fans/supporters if there hadn't been this speculation about an outside investment bid? 

Great question. The cynic in me says no. They have had 10 months already but for the moment I'll take on board what StAndrew7 and temporarily give them the benefit of the doubt.

[StAndrew7]

21 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Would the Well Society's vision and strategic plan have been made available to fans/supporters if there hadn't been this speculation about an outside investment bid? 

It was always going to be, from my understanding. I would anticipate that their plans have been sped up/given more impetus by the investment etc. but you'd need one of the Board to confirm it for certain.

21 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

Nice one and great reply.  Totally no issue with good thought provoking posts that.

Cheers.

I think the issue with the Society with Les is that it was taken away from what it was originally intended to be (i.e. a true fan ownership vehicle/route); there are several others on here who have openly expressed their disdain at its move away from its initial purpose when Les got involved. I don't think the board are doing anything other than returning the Society to its original purpose, as intended under its Articles of Association.

The articles been quoted quite a few times in the last 24 hours in relation to Messers Dickie and Feely and their backing of the bid as members of the Exec Board, which fundamentally alters the aim, structure and goals of the Society. They cannot simultaneously support both the proposed investment and the aims of the Society; Dickie resigning and the supporting statement has nailed his colours to the mast. He's clearly never been that interested in fan ownership. Feely's blurb on the Society board states he is a "passionate advocate of fan ownership". I would argue not.

As for getting their vision out before or during the voting period, they've said that's their intention; so I guess it's wait and see until we can cast our eyes over it.

[wellgirl]

6 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

Great question. The cynic in me says no. They have had 10 months already but for the moment I'll take on board what StAndrew7 and temporarily give them the benefit of the doubt.

I've been a member for six years and I don't pay that much in because I don't have lots of cash spare. I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the stuff I've seen lately on twitter.

The well society board have every right not to want outside investment but some of them were on twitter telling people to vote no before details had been made public. Months ago. Fan ownership is great but the well society have been practically invisible for too long. That's my view. 

I basically think the well society have been too anonymous for too long and that's very likely not their fault if others at the club didn't back them - but it's not good either. 

[wellgirl]

I've seen comments about how folk have never seen Motherwell fans so divided. I don't think there's anything wrong with different opinions. I'm not going to share someone's opinion on investment just because I support Motherwell and they do as well. Some fans think the current way of working is ok and others don't. That's ok as far as I'm concerned. 

[StAndrew7]

7 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I've seen comments about how folk have never seen Motherwell fans so divided. I don't think there's anything wrong with different opinions. I'm not going to share someone's opinion on investment just because I support Motherwell and they do as well. Some fans think the current way of working is ok and others don't. That's ok as far as I'm concerned. 

I think that's fine as well, my issue is when people don't do their utmost to understand the consequences of the investment and what it could mean in the long-run. There are a lot of fans (on Facebook, the artist formerly known as twitter etc.) that are basically wanting investment at any cost. I don't believe that is a good position to have, frankly, and selling 49% of the club for a pittance isn't something which should be entertained.

If others disagree with me, that's absolutely fine, but I will absolutely question why they believe that and expect solid reasoning in a response, outside of "BUT WE'RE MAKING LOSSES ALL THE TIME LOOK" which has been proven to be pure folly and also that reaction had the outgoing chairman back-peddling spectacularly after the video he released because it's simply not true.

The club aren't in financial danger; so we can afford to be picky and reject deals that simply aren't value for money.

[texanwellfan]

I don’t pretend to fully understand the pros and cons of the offer and any alternative option from the WS but it seems fundamentally wrong that part of this appears to have the WS dumping all their money into the club and ending up with a smaller share of the club. My understanding (could be wrong) is that this money is for “emergency” situations?

I would have thought that any investor would be expected to invest their money by buying shares, be that existing or new shares issued? Or is he saying I am putting in 2 million for this percentage of shares which means share price is equivalent to X pounds per share. So you (WS) need to put in money so your shares are worth same as mine? And in doing that the WS now end up with a Lower percentage of shares but with more money invested in the club?  
  My perception might be way off but I do believe he should be presenting an investment proposition based on his money and not co opting WS into investing at the same time. 
  I’m also not clear on any specific goals for the club and for his personal gain and how they plan to achieve those goals. I think it’s ok for him to expect a financial gain for any investment but his personal gain expectations should be made clear and should not be detrimental to the benefit of the club. Survival and growth of the club has to be priority number 1 and there should be clear understanding on that with contractual stipulations in place and legally binding to ensure MFC do not get shafted 

[wellgirl]

18 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I think that's fine as well, my issue is when people don't do their utmost to understand the consequences of the investment and what it could mean in the long-run. There are a lot of fans (on Facebook, the artist formerly known as twitter etc.) that are basically wanting investment at any cost. I don't believe that is a good position to have, frankly, and selling 49% of the club for a pittance isn't something which should be entertained.

If others disagree with me, that's absolutely fine, but I will absolutely question why they believe that and expect solid reasoning in a response, outside of "BUT WE'RE MAKING LOSSES ALL THE TIME LOOK" which has been proven to be pure folly and also that reaction had the outgoing chairman back-peddling spectacularly after the video he released because it's simply not true.

The club aren't in financial danger; so we can afford to be picky and reject deals that simply aren't value for money.

Of course. But we might not get any other offers which is why the well society have to think about how we raise extra funds.

Some fans are happy with the way we operate just now and that's ok. But some of the same fans aren't happy that we finish 8th or 9th. 

We can just carry on as we are. But at some point some fans might start asking why we turned down investment - because 2 million quid is better than what we've been offered to date - nothing. That doesn't mean I support the bid but I can understand why fans want something to change. 

[wellgirl]

3 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

I don’t pretend to fully understand the pros and cons of the offer and any alternative option from the WS but it seems fundamentally wrong that part of this appears to have the WS dumping all their money into the club and ending up with a smaller share of the club. My understanding (could be wrong) is that this money is for “emergency” situations?

I would have thought that any investor would be expected to invest their money by buying shares, be that existing or new shares issued? Or is he saying I am putting in 2 million for this percentage of shares which means share price is equivalent to X pounds per share. So you (WS) need to put in money so your shares are worth same as mine? And in doing that the WS now end up with a Lower percentage of shares but with more money invested in the club?  
  My perception might be way off but I do believe he should be presenting an investment proposition based on his money and not co opting WS into investing at the same time. 
  I’m also not clear on any specific goals for the club and for his personal gain and how they plan to achieve those goals. I think it’s ok for him to expect a financial gain for any investment but his personal gain expectations should be made clear and should not be detrimental to the benefit of the club. Survival and growth of the club has to be priority number 1 and there should be clear understanding on that with contractual stipulations in place and legally binding to ensure MFC do not get shafted 

Absolutely this. Survival and growth. Stagnation isn't an option. 

[StAndrew7]

12 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Of course. But we might not get any other offers which is why the well society have to think about how we raise extra funds.

Some fans are happy with the way we operate just now and that's ok. But some of the same fans aren't happy that we finish 8th or 9th. 

We can just carry on as we are. But at some point some fans might start asking why we turned down investment - because 2 million quid is better than what we've been offered to date - nothing. That doesn't mean I support the bid but I can understand why fans want something to change. 

Oh, I absolutely understand that position; but ultimately £2m over 6 seasons isn't all of a sudden going to propel us into the top-6 and be competing for European football every season. Look at Hibs and Aberdeen; budgets massively exceeding ours and they're right down here with us.

Also, it's £2million investment to lose control of the club. That needs to be stated quite clearly.

Honest question to those fans you mention (you may/may not be one of them so don't feel the need to reply), though; what do they actually expect from a Motherwell team?

We've been top flight for 40 years and only seriously been threatened by relegation once in the last 15 years, have been to cup finals, finished 2nd twice in the league and played in Europe on multiple occasions. We have a core fan base of 4,500. I think that's absolutely brilliant for us as a club. If fans want something to change, great; why not be a part of it and work with the Society to become even stronger?

As for the Society, they are going to do that and will put that plan out as soon as they can.

I understand the malaise around the WS (I've only just signed up myself) but I really do hope and expect that these unhappy fans give them the opportunity to prove that they can become more of a force within the club hierarchy, both in terms of decision making and financially.

Also, your last point isn't strictly true; there was an offer in the last 10 years or so for someone to take 25% of the club by providing an injection of cash but recoup their money and make profit on transfer fees. It was rightly rejected. Can't remember when it was, though.

I think we can afford to be picky, here. Erik Barmack works isn't the only guy in his position (or in a similar position) looking to invest in a football club; if this is voted down he may well go off, lick his wounds and come back and refine his bid alongside the Society/Caldwell to make it more palatable in the long-term to both parties, without the meddling of the outgoing chairman. The Society said in their statement that they'd look/want to continue discussions with Wild Sheep Sports to see if something can happen.

And for the record, I don't think EB is a bad guy wanting to rip the arse out the club, I think he's genuinely interested in doing something that benefits him and the club and secures its future; I just think he's been led to a deal structured by McMahon which he was told would go through without issue.

[David]

9 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

We can just carry on as we are. But at some point some fans might start asking why we turned down investment - because 2 million quid is better than what we've been offered to date - nothing.

The thing is, we're not turning down £2 million investment. We'd be essentially turning down a £2 million offer for control of the club. 

[Villageman]

4 minutes ago, David said:

The thing is, we're not turning down £2 million investment. We'd be essentially turning down a £2 million offer for control of the club. 

I would expand on that to include " An initial £300 k for day one control of the Club"

[Spiderpig]

10 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

 

And for the record, I don't think EB is a bad guy wanting to rip the arse out the club, I think he's genuinely interested in doing something that benefits him and the club and secures its future; I just think he's been led to a deal structured by McMahon which he was told would go through without issue.

Who knows if he's a good or bad guy, he's a multi millionaire and you don't become one of those without being ruthless in business. So if he gets control he'll make sure he gets his investment back with interest and won't lose any sleep if that's at the expense of the club and it's fans.

 

[StAndrew7]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Who knows if he's a good or bad guy, he's a multi millionaire and you don't become one of those without being ruthless in business. So if he gets control he'll make sure he gets his investment back with interest and won't lose any sleep if that's at the expense of the club and it's fans.

 

Of course not and the cynic in me absolutely agrees with you, but from what I've seen and heard, he certainly doesn't come across that way.

In 6 years time, who knows, I guess?

[Spiderpig]

1 minute ago, StAndrew7 said:

Of course not and the cynic in me absolutely agrees with you, but from what I've seen and heard, he certainly doesn't come across that way.

In 6 years time, who knows, I guess?

Aye time will  tell but Mike Ashley was one of the lads, a great guy by all accounts sitting with the fans etc, till he was found out as a ruthless bar steward.

These guys Barmack included are a different league in ruthlessness and business  dealing compared  to the likes of McMahon, Dickie etc, that's why they are multi millionaires.

[wellgirl]

14 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Oh, I absolutely understand that position; but ultimately £2m over 6 seasons isn't all of a sudden going to propel us into the top-6 and be competing for European football every season. Look at Hibs and Aberdeen; budgets massively exceeding ours and they're right down here with us.

Also, it's £2million investment to lose control of the club. That needs to be stated quite clearly.

Honest question to those fans you mention (you may/may not be one of them so don't feel the need to reply), though; what do they actually expect from a Motherwell team?

We've been top flight for 40 years and only seriously been threatened by relegation once in the last 15 years, have been to cup finals, finished 2nd twice in the league and played in Europe on multiple occasions. We have a core fan base of 4,500. I think that's absolutely brilliant for us as a club. If fans want something to change, great; why not be a part of it and work with the Society to become even stronger?

As for the Society, they are going to do that and will put that plan out as soon as they can.

I understand the malaise around the WS (I've only just signed up myself) but I really do hope and expect that these unhappy fans give them the opportunity to prove that they can become more of a force within the club hierarchy, both in terms of decision making and financially.

Also, your last point isn't strictly true; there was an offer in the last 10 years or so for someone to take 25% of the club by providing an injection of cash but recoup their money and make profit on transfer fees. It was rightly rejected. Can't remember when it was, though.

I think we can afford to be picky, here. Erik Barmack works isn't the only guy in his position (or in a similar position) looking to invest in a football club; if this is voted down he may well go off, lick his wounds and come back and refine his bid alongside the Society/Caldwell to make it more palatable in the long-term to both parties, without the meddling of the outgoing chairman. The Society said in their statement that they'd look/want to continue discussions with Wild Sheep Sports to see if something can happen.

And for the record, I don't think EB is a bad guy wanting to rip the arse out the club, I think he's genuinely interested in doing something that benefits him and the club and secures its future; I just think he's been led to a deal structured by McMahon which he was told would go through without issue.

I am a well society member and have been for years. I just don't think it's enough to move us forward.

Im not a fan who expects a top six finish and a cup run as a benchmark of success but other people do. How do they think we are going to achieve that going forward? 

I'll wait and see what the well society proposal is of course.