New Investment Options

[Spiderpig]

27 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. 

Dave do you really think that the current WS board are capable of creating and implementing an alternative and credible plan to provide additional year on year investment, raffles and bucket collections etc won't cut it. 

 

[Kmcalpin]

9 minutes ago, David said:

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?....

Whether it is or it isn't their responsibility, they are actively doing this and have publicly said so. On that basis, expectations will have to be met 

9 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?

Yes  it does. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, steelboy said:

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.

That's how investment works, though. Nothing is a sure thing. The bigger question here is, is there interest in a club in Scottish football? For me, if the right kind of investor is approached, the answer is yes. It just takes a bit of "out the box" thinking.

However, none of that should involve someone coming in and expecting to be given overall control. Or to have the Well Society holdings diluted below 51%.

4 minutes ago, steelboy said:

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.

There's a ton of things that can be tightened up and changed on that side of things for sure. That's where I hope to see the current CEO step up and make some changes.

[StAndrew7]

3 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Dave do you really think that the current WS board are capable of creating and implementing an alternative and credible plan to provide additional year on year investment, raffles and bucket collections etc won't cut it. 

 

Which is exactly why they're producing a strategic plan that moves away from that kind of shite, which is being used to tar the current board with what has come before them and "aye been done".

Give them a chance.

[wellgirl]

7 minutes ago, steelboy said:

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.

 

 

 

 

I've never personally thought of the investment situation as a fairy godmother coming in to make Motherwell successful 

[Kmcalpin]

Just now, Spiderpig said:

Dave do you really think that the current WS board are capable of creating and implementing an alternative and credible plan to provide additional year on year investment, raffles and bucket collections etc won't cut it. 

Time will tell Allan. The proof of the pudding and all that. I agree 100% that raffles and bucket collections won't cut it. Big thinking is required. 

[wellgirl]

4 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Dave do you really think that the current WS board are capable of creating and implementing an alternative and credible plan to provide additional year on year investment, raffles and bucket collections etc won't cut it. 

 

I personally have my doubts. 

[santheman]

I'd actually like to know what the rationale and mindset of the executive board was when they recommended acceptance of this offer. Do they know something we don't?. 

A blind man could see what the reaction of most sensible fans would be after the details were made public.

 

 

[steelboy]

2 minutes ago, David said:

That's how investment works, though. Nothing is a sure thing. 

 

Let's be honest. The massive under valuation of the club by McMahon is to ensure that Barmack can't take a loss on his investment. If in 6 years time he has control of the club for under £2m he will be well in the black as the asset will be worth far more than that.

[David]

1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said:

Whether it is or it isn't their responsibility, they are actively doing this and have publicly said so. On that basis, expectations will have to be met 

They can certainly assist the current club board where possible. However, the responsibility clearly lies with the well-paid individuals who are experienced in such matters to actually do their job.

Our new CEO hasn't been in the position for long. I would be more than happy to continue as we are and see what ideas and plans he has (why not set a date of July 1st for his plan?)

Despite some reports to the contrary, we're not heading towards disaster without an additional £300,000 a year.

3 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Yes  it does.

You wouldn't think so with the amount of chat about "pressure" on the Society board. What about the pressure on the CEO and the club board to actually do the job?

[steelboy]

7 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Dave do you really think that the current WS board are capable of creating and implementing an alternative and credible plan to provide additional year on year investment, raffles and bucket collections etc won't cut it. 

 

Why do we need year on year investment? The aim should be to run the club at a small profit to build reserves.

[David]

1 minute ago, steelboy said:

Why do we need year on year investment? The aim should be to run the club at a small profit to build reserves.

This is absolutely key for me. Regardless of money from outside sources, we simply cannot escape the fact that in order to continue as a well-run club, we need to operate within our means. 

[Spiderpig]

5 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I personally have my doubts. 

So do i, I'm not a member but only a few months ago the WS were struggling to sort out current contact details for it's membership, so producing a feasible and appropriate investment plan to take the club forward even by engaging outside professionals and agencies may be beyond their capability. Time will tell.

[Well Well]

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not inspire confidence of any cohesion and unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase. 

[Spiderpig]

8 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Why do we need year on year investment? The aim should be to run the club at a small profit to build reserves.

It was yesr on year investment in the context of the investment plan currently being discussed ie 3 to 6 years etc.

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, Well Well said:

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not show any unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase?. 

They resigned because they had no choice. They voted in favour of the proposal from Barmack and that fundamentally went against their role as board members as laid out in the Society's articles of association.

Frankly, the fact they've chosen to resign before their plan is released, to me anyway, demonstrates they weren't in favour fan ownership moving forward at all and were in favour of the investment diluting it. So they should never have been there in the first place, or resigned due to a significant conflict of interest.

Dickie from my understanding remains on the Executive Board, firmly aligned with the Chairman.

[steelboy]

1 minute ago, Spiderpig said:

It was yesr on year investment in the context of the investment plan currently being discussed ie 3 to 6 years etc.

Aye but that money seems to be earmarked for Barmack's pet projects like AI and global marketing which are unlikely to work out. The money won't go to our core operations.

Barmack's production company's Twitter account only has 25 followers, he talks a good game but has absolutely nothing to back it up.

[Onthefringes]

5 minutes ago, Well Well said:

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not inspire confidence of any cohesion and unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase. 

It’s not rocket science. 2 were co-opted onto executive board and were toeing the party line and the other who’s grifted their whole tenure was an ally.

[David]

7 minutes ago, Well Well said:

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

What about those of us who aren't keen on the Barmack proposal, but who instead believe we should be expecting more from our board and CEO? 

7 minutes ago, Well Well said:

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not inspire confidence of any cohesion and unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase. 

I'm not so sure about that. The resignations have come about because the individuals involved voted in favour of reducing the Society to less than 51%, which means essentially putting an end to fan ownership. If they believe that, then they shouldn't really be on the board of the Society.

[wellgirl]

25 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Whether it is or it isn't their responsibility, they are actively doing this and have publicly said so. On that basis, expectations will have to be met 

Yes  it does. 

Agree. The society maybe felt they had to come up with an alternative proposal so it will be interesting to see what it is. 

[Spiderpig]

5 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Aye but that money seems to be earmarked for Barmack's pet projects like AI and global marketing which are unlikely to work out. The money won't go to our core operations.

Barmack's production company's Twitter account only has 25 followers, he talks a good game but has absolutely nothing to back it up.

I'm not disagreeing with you, sometimes it takes some unorthodox moves to make an investment work long term. But the low offer and the effective removal of the WS in the plan on offer makes it a Mon starter for me.

[David]

18 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Agree. The society maybe felt they had to come up with an alternative proposal so it will be interesting to see what it is. 

And what if they don't come up with a proposal that would see us bring in an extra few million pounds?

[Well Well]

Thanks for the responses. It helps me to understand the different viewpoints. It may not be rocket science but there is some misinformation and smoke being put out there by both sides.

[Well Well]

Erik Barmack just posted this on P&B;

Back for Day 2 -- I think I'm going to need more animated gif memes to survive here.  I just want to clarify a few points that may be at least somewhat helpful in this discussion:

(1) The design of our offer was always to give fans 50%+.  Because there were discussions with lots of parties, and the actual governance of the Club isn't the easiest to understand, we landed where we did -- but if the main concern was keeping TWS, specifically, at 50%+, I'm sure smart people (not me) could sit in a room and solve it.  Intention matters here.

(2) There is a moving target, too, on what we, collectively, think the state of the Club's finances are.  I want to repeat that I am not in the gloom-and-doom category of the state of finances, but on any given year, there COULD BE a gap, and those gaps are likely to require outside funding because of FFP requirements.  I personally don't believe that the choices are "TWS goes with the Barmack plan" OR "TWS funds nothing."  I kind of believe that TWS will have to fund some things in the coming years, regardless, and we need to look at the delta of that amount, which is admittedly difficult to do.The intention of our offer was so that planning could be done over several years and with greater predictability.

(3) The intention of the "call option," was so that we were held accountable.   That's the key forcing function.   We think we'd be good at working with TWS, Brian and others, but lots of people think they're good at things and end up sucking.  I don't think that the argument holds that the call option won't be exercisable, because it ignores the fact that player sales, which are extremely likely to occur, will be held in escrow.  Finally, there's snark about "fees" associated with the call option, and just for clarity, those are fees that would involve lawyers and accountants to open and close a business.  (Read: It would suck for us to have the option called.)

(4) On valuation, to be slightly more specific, there are a few thoughts:

    (a) We know that 6-7 offers were made on MFC, and none were deemed better -- that's one point.

    (b) We personally looked at clubs in the SPFL and top clubs in the Championship, and I can tell you that the valuations are all within a range that's not wildly off, though it's also true that football prices change constantly.

     (c) One just playful idea -- Newcastle United does more revenue in total than the entire SPFL, and it sold a few years back for 300m pounds.  If you track revenue within the SPFL, at least 82-85% of it is attributable to the OF, and at least 10% of the remaining chunk is the Edinburgh clubs and Aberdeen.  That gets you to 7 clubs splitting 7-10% of the revenue.  Yes, Newcastle has grown over the last two years, but even if that club is now worth 400m pounds, as a comp, you'd be looking at 7-10% of 40m pounds across seven clubs, and those clubs have different levels of debt/stadiums/etc.  That may not be convincing, but it was helpful to me in combination with a+b.

Still, valuation can be quite subjective.  And little changes (a player sale, a better stadium, a new media rights deal) can completely change things.  So, I'm not asking you to agree with me, per se.  I just want you understand that thought was put into this.

(5) There have been a number of posts about death-star-like machinations to somehow gut the club in year 6, or flip assets.  Here I ask for the intermingling of faith/logic -- there are approximately a gazillion easier ways to make money than through the SPFL, and if there was some plan to strip assets in year 6, it's going to be a terrible one.  The only way we (possibly) ever make money off this opportunity is if the Club grows brilliantly, and someone else wants to engage in a hybrid model of fan ownership.

(6) Finally, I wanted to put a little context behind our negotiations.  This will sound somewhat counter-narrative to this particular board, but the members of the MFC Board were all passionate about our offer because we emphasized that we wanted to balance private and fan-ownership interests.  They were very concerned, too, about long-term stability for MFC and worked selflessly on this deal (I know I'm not making fans here, but that's what I experienced.)  We put the best offer out that we could given the information we had, it was accepted by the Board, and presented to TWS Board several times.  Concerns were expressed, obviously, but nothing to the extent of the dissenting letter that went out yesterday, and that's not a knock on the WS Board -- I believe that they're acting in what they perceive to be the best interests of the Club.  Similarly, and just sharing for transparency, I get tons of emails telling us to hang in there, because the most vocal critics are on message boards/Twitter, and that a larger percentage than this board might think could want "change."  (I''m not sure if that's right, but it's something to consider -- but, on the other hand, I also don't want to be "right," get a deal done, and have Block E holding up signs that read: "Barmacks go home.")

Summarizing, we're not total buffoons, we hope, nor are we the most venal extreme of American capitalists.  We still think what we put forth would make the Club stronger.  If it doesn't, I don't believe MFC is somehow doomed -- it's just a different trajectory.  I still like and respect Derek, Sean, Jason and those who are adamantly against the present deal, and if they have feedback for me, I will always take it.  I don't know if this is helpful, but wanted to lay some of these pieces out for consideration.

E

[wellgirl]

12 minutes ago, David said:

And what if they don't come up with a proposal that would see us bring in an extra few million pounds?

Not sure I'm best placed to answer that given that I'm just a well society member and don't have the first clue what their proposal is going to be.