New Investment Options

[David]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

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.

To be fair, achieving success in business doesn’t automatically make someone unpleasant. Much of reaching that level involves building relationships and being trustworthy and reliable enough that others want to work with them.

There are always bad apples in every industry and at every level of business. However, the stereotype of the evil, ruthless multi-millionaire who seeks only to make a quick profit at others’ expense is just that—a stereotype.

[StAndrew7]

4 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

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. 

Based on past history and lack of much of anything to drive it forward, I would have absolutely agreed with the point in bold. But I think, like you say, it's crucial to give the WS the opportunity to demonstrate that it can be.

Out of interest; why d'you think that?

[wellgirl]

Just now, StAndrew7 said:

Based on past history and lack of much of anything to drive it forward, I would have absolutely agreed with the point in bold. But I think, like you say, it's crucial to give the WS the opportunity to demonstrate that it can be.

Out of interest; why d'you think that?

Because of past history like you've just mentioned. I believe in them enough to be a member. 

[steelboy]

When people say 'move forward' what exactly does that mean?

It's all about winning football games and the ownership model has very little to do with that unless we get a real investor in who will double the playing budget. That's not going to happen and the offer we have isn't going to change anything you see on the park on a Saturday but makes us far less secure long term.

 

[Coatsy]

Can the Well Society as the defacto Owners of MFC provide 2M investment (Not a Loan) over the next 6 years as well as opening up to other external investment diluting only their shareholding?

Just asking for a friend

[steelboy]

2 minutes ago, Coatsy said:

Can the Well Society as the defacto Owners of MFC provide 2M investment (Not a Loan) over the next 6 years as well as opening up to other external investment diluting only their shareholding?

 

The Well Society are the actual owners there's nothing defacto about it.

[texanwellfan]

8 minutes ago, steelboy said:

When people say 'move forward' what exactly does that mean?

It's all about winning football games and the ownership model has very little to do with that unless we get a real investor in who will double the playing budget. That's not going to happen and the offer we have isn't going to change anything you see on the park on a Saturday but makes us far less secure long term.

 

For me it means having a bit more financial security. Perhaps able to hold onto better players for longer. Not having to sell players to survive. As you mention the chances of us getting a real investor to bring in life changing amounts of cash is pretty slim, if at all. However, if we can at least some forward steps with continuous improvement then we can achieve progress slowly. However, as you also mentioned whatever the finances are, we also need the management and players to produce the goods on the park. So while extra cash doesn’t guarantee that,  it does give you a better chance of success in being able to attract and hold onto better players, coaches and staff. 

[steelboy]

3 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

For me it means having a bit more financial security. Perhaps able to hold onto better players for longer. Not having to sell players to survive. 

We have less financial security under Barmack's plan. Firstly because the ideas he has about AI and global brand marketing are going to be expensive and use up not only the money he's putting in but also the Well Society's money. Secondly because in 6 years time we would have no protections over our assets and he could sell us to anyone or asset strip himself.

 

[StAndrew7]

18 minutes ago, Coatsy said:

Can the Well Society as the defacto Owners of MFC provide 2M investment (Not a Loan) over the next 6 years as well as opening up to other external investment diluting only their shareholding?

Just asking for a friend

The Well Society are the owners, there isn't any defacto about it.

I think there's a decent chance that a reinvigorated Society, working alongside a CEO with actual business acumen and experience of working for a long time in the industry (rather than one who chats on Twitter a lot, or a meddling outgoing chairman), will provide a fairly decent wedge of new/additional income into the club. It may not be "investment per se" but I think that achieving an increase in club income in the order of £350k a year outside of transfers is absolutely achievable, yes.

As for diluting their shareholding? I think as long as the Society retains 51% ownership and the investors know what they're buying into, I think the WS Board would definitely have to consider it and if it works, put it to the vote, yes.

Just my opinion, mind. I'm not speaking for them!

[StAndrew7]

Just now, steelboy said:

We have less financial security under Barmack's plan. Firstly because the ideas he has about AI and global brand marketing are going to be expensive and use up not only the money he's putting in but also the Well Society's money. Secondly because in 6 years time we would have no protections over our assets and he could sell us to anyone or asset strip himself.

 

This is top of my list for questions to the Club, when I get down to writing them later in the week; this absolutely has to be clarified.

[David]

20 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

As for diluting their shareholding? I think as long as the Society retains 51% ownership and the investors know what they're buying into, I think the WS Board would definitely have to consider it and if it works, put it to the vote, yes.

This is crucial for me. In my opinion, many people are mistakenly assuming that a potential investor seeking a 49% shareholding means the Society retains control. This is not necessarily the case.

The key point for me is that the Society itself must retain a minimum of 51% control. Could we negotiate to reduce our holdings from the current 71%? Absolutely. There is room for negotiation with the right party, but our holding simply cannot fall below 51%.

That is my firm boundary.

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, wunderwell said:

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!

I agree with much of what you say, especially regards the history of the Society dating back to Les and more recently McMahon.

With regard to the 'new' Society Board, I do think they have been working extremely hard to effect change bringing about a Society which will be more akin to the Society that was first established. With McMahon no longer influencing Society operations from afar (supported by certain WS Board members) I think that vision has just become a lot more likely to materialise. For that reason I think it is only right to continue our support for their efforts.

You mention a Society plan. Can I ask you if you believe that plan should incorporate securing external finance/fund raising for the Football Club? Because to my mind that is the responsibility of the Football Club Board whereas the responsibility of the Society Board is to increase Society Membership and through that growth increase the monies held by the Society, to be loaned to the Club in times of need. A safety net if you like. As a direct result of the domination exerted by Les H and latterly Jim McM it looks to me like the roles of two totally separate Boards with different responsibilities have become blurred.

You make a comparison with the Hearts situation and I do agree that there are areas of best practice we could adopt. But please bear in mind the numbers the Hearts Society can turn to and also the fact that they have worked closely and openly with the Hearts Board in the best interests of all parties. I genuinely believe that relationship has not been replicated at Fir Park for a good number of years. A factor brought to light following Society Board changes last year.

With regard to external funding, Budge and Co have repeatedly secured additional funding over and above what their Hearts Foundation has provided. I think as recently as last week two new initiatives were announced? Other than this Barmack proposal, what external finance have McMahon and his colleagues secured in recent times? His sole approach seems to have been to to raid Society funds. With no real intention of ever repaying those monies. In short, the current Club Board have fallen short.

Barmack's proposal seems to carry on that assault on the Society. Not only are the Society expected to write of a huge sum due to them from MFC (having previously 'donated' a considerable sum outwith the terms of the original Society) , they are to commit to almost matching annually the finance provided via Barmack. Effectively emptying Society coffers. Whilst at the same time falling below 51% ownership. The sop being that the Society can buy out Barmack in two or six years if matters are not going as promised. He even includes a premium to be charged if I read correctly.  And where exactly is the finance required for that repurchase going to come from?

I do think that external finance is required. So let the MFC Board go out and secure it without sacrificing the Well Society and all it represents. Meantime, with internal barriers removed, let the Society move forward under new Leadership to fulfil the purpose for which they were established.

Another point to consider. With McMahon no longer a factor and hopefully Barmack rejected, the Club is in no worse situation than it was three months ago. Arguably the situation would actually be improved. No existing finance has been lost. We still have two saleable assets. The transfer of either could provide the breathing space to enable Club and Society to move forward. At the end of the day that's what we all want.

 

[David]

2 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I do think that external finance is required. So let the MFC Board go out and secure it without sacrificing the Well Society and all it represents

This is where it can get tricky. Tricky, but not impossible. We ideally need to find revenue streams from investors that don't involve us handing over control of the club.

[dennyc]

Just now, David said:

This is where it can get tricky. Tricky, but not impossible. We ideally need to find revenue streams from investors that don't involve us handing over control of the club.

As Hearts have done through the hard work of Budge and her Board colleagues, working with the Hearts Foundation and not against. Might be easier for Hearts given their supporter base and greater attraction, but they have shown what is possible.

 

[David]

1 minute ago, dennyc said:

As Hearts have done through the hard work of Budge and her Board colleagues, working with the Hearts Foundation and not against. Might be easier for Hearts given their supporter base and greater attraction, but they have shown what is possible.

Although Budge has an emotional attachment to Hearts, correct? If we had a Lanarkshire version of Anne Budge we'd be laughing. 

There are ways to do it even outwith that scenario though. I've done it with companies I've worked with, and I've offered up assistance to the Society on that front. I will also say that they're a lot more receptive since the new board came into play. In my experience, anyway.

[steelboy]

9 minutes ago, David said:

Although Budge has an emotional attachment to Hearts, correct? If we had a Lanarkshire version of Anne Budge we'd be laughing. 

I don't think Budge has put much of her own money in. Most of it comes from a finance guy called James Anderson who has invested a hell of a lot more than Barmack is proposing and actually supports fan ownership.

"Sitting near McKinlay at the top table during the AGM was Anderson, Hearts' principal benefactor and a non-executive director. Benefactors combined have donated more than £25m to the Edinburgh club since 2017, and Anderson is responsible for the greatest chunk of that. McKinlay divulged that there is a contract in place with the Edinburgh businessman going forward. 

"We have a contractual commitment from him. I can’t go into the details of that for obvious reasons," he remarked. "James is very much committed to the longer term of Hearts. I think he said in an interview recently that he wants to see stability. He does not want to see managers changing every six months, or every three months or whatever. We have seen that at some other clubs."

 

[dennyc]

6 minutes ago, David said:

Although Budge has an emotional attachment to Hearts, correct? If we had a Lanarkshire version of Anne Budge we'd be laughing. 

There are ways to do it even outwith that scenario though. I've done it with companies I've worked with, and I've offered up assistance to the Society on that front. I will also say that they're a lot more receptive since the new board came into play. In my experience, anyway.

Fair point.

I guess what we don't know is what attempts the existing MFC Board made in recent times to secure fresh investment. Be it through that emotional attachment you mention or through local Business people who are able and willing to support the community.

Looking from afar, it just looks like the Board were happy to rely on the Society for support until such time as McMahon and others decided it was time to get out. Hence the video and what has unfolded since.

[texanwellfan]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

We have less financial security under Barmack's plan. Firstly because the ideas he has about AI and global brand marketing are going to be expensive and use up not only the money he's putting in but also the Well Society's money. Secondly because in 6 years time we would have no protections over our assets and he could sell us to anyone or asset strip himself.

 

Agree, the current proposal doesn’t sound like what we are looking for. 

[Kmcalpin]

5 hours 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. 

It is and the pressure is now on the Society board to produce and publish an alternative investment plan. Its not unreasonable for members to expect this by 1 July. 

[texanwellfan]

I think we need a supporter to win the powerball or megamillions. 
I’m trying!

[StAndrew7]

14 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

It is and the pressure is now on the Society board to produce and publish an alternative investment plan. Its not unreasonable for members to expect this by 1 July. 

They've basically said that's what is happening.

And also, I think @dennyc and others are spot on. The Well Society hasn't failed as an organisation in any of this. If anything, the fact they're producing a plan which I would expect is going to be potentially a fair bit outside their remit, demonstrates they have they Club's best interests at their core.

I would suggest that they've seen the threat of an inactive/ineffectual Executive Board and are acting on that just as much as in response to proposed investment.

It's interesting that McMahon all of a sudden made investment his priority post the October Society elections, when a significant number of the old guard were voted out. He spoke about looking for investment and telling our story at length at 3 or 4 AGMs before the latest one.

The lack of action until he was under threat from a rejuvenated WS is telling.

[David]

14 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

It is and the pressure is now on the Society board to produce and publish an alternative investment plan. Its not unreasonable for members to expect this by 1 July. 

Is it, though? As others have mentioned, is it really the responsibility of a group of volunteers to create an investment plan for a million-pound business?

Doesn't some of the responsibility for that lie with the CEO of the company? You know, the person who's being well paid to do that job? Or even the Chairman?

Or is it a case of fans sitting back and saying, "Well, the club and board have voted in favour of the current offer from Barmack. Now it's up to the Society volunteers to better it, or we go with the sub-standard first offer"?

Here's an idea. Why not hold the board of the club and the new CEO accountable for doing their jobs? The fact that they proudly voted in favour of recommending the current offer is alarming, to say the least.

Here's a question. If the Society somehow came up with a way to raise an extra few million pounds for the club, do we want the individuals who saw fit to recommend the current offer from Barmack being in charge of how that money is spent?

Sorry, but for me, this isn't on the Society. This is on the board. If they honestly believe this offer is as good as it's going to get for a club like ours, then we really need to be asking questions about their suitability for the roles they're in.

[Yoshi-1991]

20 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

I think we need a supporter to win the powerball or megamillions. 
I’m trying!

Think that's the WS plan

[David]

3 minutes ago, Yoshi-1991 said:

Think that's the WS plan

With recent resignations there will be places available on the board. Why don't you run and get the job done?

[steelboy]

2 minutes ago, David said:

 

Doesn't some of the responsibility for that lie with the CEO of the company? You know, the person who's being well paid to do that job? Or even the Chairman?

 

I think we all have to acknowledge the possibility that external investment where the investor is happy to take a loss if things don't work out might not be something that's out there. The status quo isn't so bad but the video from McMahon and Weir planted a seed that something needs to happen in the minds of quite a lot of people who want a fairy godmother to come in and make us a successful football team.

Focusing on our core business should be enough to keep us in the top division, challenge for the Top 6 and hopefully do better in the cups. Long term stability is the goal.