dennyc Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 5 hours ago, santheman said: The thing I'm finding it hard to get my head around are the motives of the executive board behind recommending acceptance of what on the surface looks like a shit deal. As far as I know they're all die hard Motherwell fans who surely want the best for the club they've supported all their lives so why would they accept something that could potentially affect the future of the club and cause division among the support. Is there something going on behind the scenes that we're not party to or have they just had enough of running the club and want out at any cost or something else?. My take on things is that McMahon....and perhaps others on the Exec Board.....have always regarded the WS as a hinderance rather than an asset. Good for PR but little else. The Society's only value being the cash it generates. And until recent Society Board changes that cash was readily accessible more or less for whatever purpose the Exec Board judged appropriate and on terms far different from those established when the Society was created. Had the original concept been followed there would currently be in excess of £2m in the Society coffers. Others can confirm the exact amount. Those changes to the Society Board have brought about a desire to return the Society to it's original way of operating and at the same time reduced McMahon's control over Society decisions. A desire that was having a positive outcome with funds starting to accumulate and under greater control. For that reason I feel the new WS Board have earned our patience. But their role is to grow the Society, not run the Club on a day to day basis. Their are professionals to do that. With that source of readily available funds under question moving forward, and if we can agree that it would benefit the Club to secure additional finance to assist on and off the field, McMahon and the Board now have to seek alternative solutions. Hence the Taylor Swift video. Please remember that this a gentleman who has been in control of the Club for a number of years and has failed to secure any meaningful investment in that time, relying almost entirely upon the WS. Under pressure, McMahon has now decided to head off and is desperate for that to happen quickly. Barmack has provided him with his get out of jail card and McMahon is doing whatever is required to push a deal through, possibly at the expense of the WS which in my personal opinion would please him greatly. I find it revealing that, if the comments on P&B are to be believed, the information provided to Barmack has painted a wholly incorrect picture. Both with regard to the WS stance and the valuation of the Club. Who to believe? It also rankles that the WS are to write off all monies due to them from MFC. Again totally against what was promised way back in the day. I think that stipulation is huge and a step to far. So either the Club's finances are not as we think (and before anyone jumps in, I do not think the position is critical or we are in danger) or McMahon and the Board have run out of ideas and, coupled with the relationship with the Society changing, they mostly want a way out. Like several have in recent times. A point to remember, even if the Barmack proposal falls and he walks away, we have not lost any existing income streams. Perhaps that fact has been lost sight of in all the upheaval? Anyway, that's my take on things. I am not 'on the inside' and I want to make that clear. Just as I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 39 minutes ago, Peter Millar said: Extremely straight forward?? Really?? Then why is it so difficult to get right?? The football side is hard. But the directors don't have much input into that it's the manager, players, head of recruitment to a lesser extent the CEO. The administrative side is easy, you could put a Sausage Dog in the board room and we are still selling out the South Stand to the Old Firm and getting our share of the TV money, the UEFA money etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 2 hours ago, texanwellfan said: my head hurts reading all this stuff and I haven’t even been close to looking on P&B 🥴 If you do, make sure to read the content posted by Vietnam91. Whoever that is, they're bang on the money and posting some excellent insight. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 18 minutes ago, David said: If you do, make sure to read the content posted by Vietnam91. Whoever that is, they're bang on the money and posting some excellent insight. Yeah, his latest post with responses from the finance director in it are excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Blues Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 16 minutes ago, David said: Vietnam91. Whoever that is The clues are in the name. (It's not the 91 you're probably thinking of - at any rate, not just that '91.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergie79 Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 Regarding Well Society representatives on the club board....what is their remit and obligation regarding voting on matters such as this? Surely they should at least go back to the WS board, discuss the information at hand, provide details of the club board discussions then go back with a vote that represents the wider WS board position? It looks like they have made a vote based on personal opinion which hasn't represented the wider WS board's views? It may not be workable to do that for every vote but for important ones then that should surely be the case? It is madness we are in a position where the WS board have come out with a statement totally different to what the representatives on the club board voted for. Lessons learned regarding guidelines and process the WS representatives on the club board need to follow when being voted onto the club board as WS representatives given there will need to be new ones voted in to replace the resigned ones shortly. It was embarrassing to have the WS board issue a statement that contradicts what their club board representatives voted for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 17 minutes ago, Fergie79 said: Regarding Well Society representatives on the club board....what is their remit and obligation regarding voting on matters such as this? Surely they should at least go back to the WS board, discuss the information at hand, provide details of the club board discussions then go back with a vote that represents the wider WS board position? It looks like they have made a vote based on personal opinion which hasn't represented the wider WS board's views? It may not be workable to do that for every vote but for important ones then that should surely be the case? It is madness we are in a position where the WS board have come out with a statement totally different to what the representatives on the club board voted for. Lessons learned regarding guidelines and process the WS representatives on the club board need to follow when being voted onto the club board as WS representatives given there will need to be new ones voted in to replace the resigned ones shortly. It was embarrassing to have the WS board issue a statement that contradicts what their club board representatives voted for. The well society said they weren't taking part in the negotiations. So I assume any vote wouldn't have been representing the well society position as they indicated a couple of months ago that they were not going to be part of the negotiations.. I assume then that the people who voted did so in their remit as board members and then felt they had to step down as there was a clear conflict of interests between that position and their position on the well society board. Clearly a lot of questions that need answering. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motherwellfc1991 Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 Question for a well society board member or possibly steelboy will know the answer to this like everything else how many paying monthly members of the well society are there at present ? steelboy - I would love to read your CV . You must be in some hire power business and position given your knowledge on everything and that fact that you know the answer to everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 4 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said: Question for a well society board member or possibly steelboy will know the answer to this like everything else how many paying monthly members of the well society are there at present ? steelboy - I would love to read your CV . You must be in some hire power business and position given your knowledge on everything and that fact that you know the answer to everything. Around 3000 I believe. Possibly slightly more - could be 3800 or so. Sure someone posted the figure a few months back Just googled and it was 3500 at the end of 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 9 minutes ago, wellgirl said: Around 3000 I believe. Possibly slightly more - could be 3800 or so. Sure someone posted the figure a few months back Just googled and it was 3500 at the end of 2022 Now over 3800 as of last month. What would be interesting to know is a breakdown by type/age and how many actively contribute monthly or have made a one off payment but don't contribute monthly That would give us an idea of how many " active" members we have who tbh are going to be the ones targetted to dig into their pockets to support any WS initiative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 1 hour ago, David said: If you do, make sure to read the content posted by Vietnam91. Whoever that is, they're bang on the money and posting some excellent insight. Prompted by this, I gave in and read the P&B thread, or at least the last few pages. All I would add is ....... Listen to Vietnam91. If he is who I think he is, then he is in a better position than many to evaluate the entire situation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergie79 Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 37 minutes ago, wellgirl said: The well society said they weren't taking part in the negotiations. So I assume any vote wouldn't have been representing the well society position as they indicated a couple of months ago that they were not going to be part of the negotiations.. I assume then that the people who voted did so in their remit as board members and then felt they had to step down as there was a clear conflict of interests between that position and their position on the well society board. Clearly a lot of questions that need answering. That's the problem, they voted personally on the club board instead of discussing with their ws board counterparts before voting..... I would expect WS club board members are representing the WS board and it's members, not there to vote with their personal viewpoint on such important matters......that is fundamentally wrong and needs to change going forward for any new WS club board representatives....a lot of this situation could have been avoided if this policy was in place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 58 minutes ago, Electric Blues said: The clues are in the name. (It's not the 91 you're probably thinking of - at any rate, not just that '91.) Chocks away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 Just now, Fergie79 said: That's the problem, they voted personally on the club board instead of discussing with their ws board counterparts before voting..... I would expect WS club board members are representing the WS board and it's members, not there to vote with their personal viewpoint on such important matters......that is fundamentally wrong and needs to change going forward for any new WS club board representatives Excellent point. It is yet another example of how backward things are at present. I believe the Well Society representatives on the board view themselves more as club board members who relay information to the Society board, rather than actual Society board members on the club board to represent the wishes of the Society. In my opinion, they should have consulted with the Society board at large, then taken that vote outcome to the club board and voted accordingly, which would clearly have been to vote against the Barmack proposal in its current form. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said: Yeah, his latest post with responses from the finance director in it are excellent. I’ve never been on P&B but I may have to go take a look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 If anything has come of this sorry debacle, it surely is that the Society needs some protocols in place for dealing with potential investment or interested parties in the club? The first priority must be a clarification of the voting structure and responsibilities of those Well Society board members who are elected to represent the Society on the club board. Any vote of the type we've just witnessed must follow a clear protocol, along the lines of: The Society board should first discuss the matter internally and hold an internal vote among its board members. The Society representatives on the club board must then carry the result of that internal vote to the club board and vote accordingly. They cannot be permitted to vote based on their personal opinions. If they wish to do so, they should run for the club board independently of the Society. They cannot use the Well Society seats on the board to push their own agendas. Also, there must be some clear boundaries regarding potential investments or buyouts from external sources. Firstly, an agreed valuation of the club, accepted by both the club board and the Society board, should be established and reviewed annually. Any interested parties must meet this valuation before any offer is considered seriously. Parameters should be decided upon that investors must meet for the Society board to consider relinquishing control of the club. We cannot endure this prolonged process every time someone expresses an interest in investing. For instance, any offer to buy the club in its entirety for the agreed valuation should prompt a discussion about relinquishing control of the club, involving both the Society board and the wider membership via a vote. In my opinion, Barmack's offer should never have progressed to a membership-wide vote, as it did not meet any reasonable criteria that would justify replacing fan ownership. The absence of these protocols, or something similar, has led to the current situation where the fan ownership group board votes against a proposal while their representatives on the club board vote in favour of it, leading to their resignation. Meanwhile, a potential investor attempts to gain support on a Scottish Football forum. The entire scenario would be laughable if it did not have such serious consequences for the club. Now we're in a situation where the Society board looks like it will lose three (two confirmed) members, and the club board has lost the two society representatives. Now, we need to look at Society board elections to fill those spaces and then look at who will represent the society on the club board. All while Erik Barmack is sitting in the background waiting on word about his offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 8 hours ago, steelboy said: The Society board agree with me that McMahon has massively undervalued the club. It's undervalued to the extent it can't be considered an honest mistake. The question is what they are going to do about it? If we ever actually have a Society meeting about this you can come watch me make all these points in public. Will do. Will you have your Well scarf on , just so as i know its you. Don’t hold your breath for the meeting it may be a while comming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 44 minutes ago, Fergie79 said: That's the problem, they voted personally on the club board instead of discussing with their ws board counterparts before voting..... I would expect WS club board members are representing the WS board and it's members, not there to vote with their personal viewpoint on such important matters......that is fundamentally wrong and needs to change going forward for any new WS club board representatives....a lot of this situation could have been avoided if this policy was in place Surely they had that vote in their capacity as Motherwell fc board members and not as well society board members? The well society also made it clear that they wouldn't be taking part in negotiations and would put a statement out when the vote was over which they have done. So why would they want or need representation on the vote? They can't say they are stepping out until the vote is over and want input at the same time. Clearly theres a conflict and to be fair it's one few people could have seen in advance because no one knew when they were elected to the well society board that there would be this offer of outside investment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stv Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 2 hours ago, Peter Millar said: Negative and slanderous comments. Where? I'd say objective rather than negative and I don't know where I have slandered anyone. For example I haven't labelled anyone crooked. However, my opinion is the current Well Society board don't have the experience and skills to direct a business with a value of £8 million. I hope I am proved wrong and will be more than happy to say so if that's the case.' You having an identity crisis or are you not who you seem to be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 46 minutes ago, wellgirl said: The well society also made it clear that they wouldn't be taking part in negotiations and would put a statement out when the vote was over which they have done. That's the main problem here the WS are the majority shareholders they should be involved in every major decision the club takes. Yes the WS representatives on the club board need to vote but that should be in accordance with the members views, especially for a major decision such as this. Up till now the club board have basically ignored the WS, taking the money but ignoring them for everything else. And it's all because the WS was set up with no professional people on board and run by volunteers who seem to have done what they were told to by the club board ie leave running the club to us and don't Interfere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 7 minutes ago, Spiderpig said: That's the main problem here the WS are the majority shareholders they should be involved in every major decision the club takes. Yes the WS representatives on the club board need to vote but that should be in accordance with the members views, especially for a major decision such as this. Up till now the club board have basically ignored the WS, taking the money but ignoring them for everything else. And it's all because the WS was set up with no professional people on board and run by volunteers who seem to have done what they were told to by the club board ie leave running the club to us and don't Interfere. Clearly less than ideal and I don't envy the well society in any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purestate Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 Anyone else think all the angst and psychodrama could be a false flag operation designed to form the plot/script/content of the first two episodes of a Netflix/Prime docusoap? 🤔😉 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 3 hours ago, dennyc said: My take on things is that McMahon....and perhaps others on the Exec Board.....have always regarded the WS as a hinderance rather than an asset. Good for PR but little else. The Society's only value being the cash it generates. And until recent Society Board changes that cash was readily accessible more or less for whatever purpose the Exec Board judged appropriate and on terms far different from those established when the Society was created. Had the original concept been followed there would currently be in excess of £2m in the Society coffers. Others can confirm the exact amount. Those changes to the Society Board have brought about a desire to return the Society to it's original way of operating and at the same time reduced McMahon's control over Society decisions. A desire that was having a positive outcome with funds starting to accumulate and under greater control. For that reason I feel the new WS Board have earned our patience. But their role is to grow the Society, not run the Club on a day to day basis. Their are professionals to do that. With that source of readily available funds under question moving forward, and if we can agree that it would benefit the Club to secure additional finance to assist on and off the field, McMahon and the Board now have to seek alternative solutions. Hence the Taylor Swift video. Please remember that this a gentleman who has been in control of the Club for a number of years and has failed to secure any meaningful investment in that time, relying almost entirely upon the WS. Under pressure, McMahon has now decided to head off and is desperate for that to happen quickly. Barmack has provided him with his get out of jail card and McMahon is doing whatever is required to push a deal through, possibly at the expense of the WS which in my personal opinion would please him greatly. I find it revealing that, if the comments on P&B are to be believed, the information provided to Barmack has painted a wholly incorrect picture. Both with regard to the WS stance and the valuation of the Club. Who to believe? It also rankles that the WS are to write off all monies due to them from MFC. Again totally against what was promised way back in the day. I think that stipulation is huge and a step to far. So either the Club's finances are not as we think (and before anyone jumps in, I do not think the position is critical or we are in danger) or McMahon and the Board have run out of ideas and, coupled with the relationship with the Society changing, they mostly want a way out. Like several have in recent times. A point to remember, even if the Barmack proposal falls and he walks away, we have not lost any existing income streams. Perhaps that fact has been lost sight of in all the upheaval? Anyway, that's my take on things. I am not 'on the inside' and I want to make that clear. Just as I see it. Thanks for your insight. My take on it is there's a lot of talk about the valuation of the club and suggestions that the figure has been artificially lowballed by the executive board to make the proposed investment by EB look more realistic in comparative terms. Now I'm assuming that this figure has been verified by an outside scource (at the very least our own external auditors) so unless someone knows different I'm prepared to give them the benefit of doubt that the figure quoted is correct based on up to date accounts unless there's a lot of creative accounting going on. If that's the case then someone has a lot to answer for both from fans and EB himself. Regardless of the valuation of the club (if it had been valued at 7/8million would EB have been prepared to double his offer?). Is 300k a year better than zilch. Regardless of all the above the terms and conditions attached to the deal make it a no go for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 14 minutes ago, Spiderpig said: That's the main problem here the WS are the majority shareholders they should be involved in every major decision the club takes. Yes the WS representatives on the club board need to vote but that should be in accordance with the members views, especially for a major decision such as this. Up till now the club board have basically ignored the WS, taking the money but ignoring them for everything else. And it's all because the WS was set up with no professional people on board and run by volunteers who seem to have done what they were told to by the club board ie leave running the club to us and don't Interfere. I made this point on P&B the other day and I am by no ways or means defending their decision when I say this, but by voting for the investment to go through, the two WS reps on the board were technically following the wishes of the Society membership. The results of the vote earlier in the year made it clear the membership was interested in hearing options that could dilute the overall shareholdings below majority stake. So they've carried out the wishes of the Society by putting it through. My biggest issue with all of this, is the terms which come with it and how it seems to the vast majority if not all of us that it's a poor deal. It is also starting to become apparent that the two WS reps on the Exec Board haven't represented the views of the WS Board as a whole, or at least stopped the feedback from the WS board getting to Barmack based on what EB has been saying on P&B. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 12 Report Share Posted June 12 1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said: I made this point on P&B the other day and I am by no ways or means defending their decision when I say this, but by voting for the investment to go through, the two WS reps on the board were technically following the wishes of the Society membership. The results of the vote earlier in the year made it clear the membership was interested in hearing options that could dilute the overall shareholdings below majority stake. So they've carried out the wishes of the Society by putting it through. My biggest issue with all of this, is the terms which come with it and how it seems to the vast majority if not all of us that it's a poor deal. It is also starting to become apparent that the two WS reps on the Exec Board haven't represented the views of the WS Board as a whole, or at least stopped the feedback from the WS board getting to Barmack based on what EB has been saying on P&B. EB said the other day that there had been dialogue with well society board members. He referred to Sean, Jason and Derek and said that he was aware that they weren't in favour of the offer but that it hadn't been communicated in as strong terms as in the well society statement. I personally think the folk who can answer the questions on the voting issue are the Well Society board. Right now there's a lot of speculation as there's always going to be. I personally don't think the issue is that it's a poor offer that fans don't want. If members don't want it they can reject it. The issue is that the board have decided to look for external investment - and the Well Society are opposed to this - at least in its present form where we would see the society lose majority control. There's obviously a conflict between the board and the society - as a lot of people are aware. If the offer had been tossed out before fans got to vote then some fans wouldn't have been happy with that. I suppose some people will be concerned that the bid might be accepted but that was always going to be a possibility given the way the vote went earlier in the year. I don't have sources like some fans - so I don't know anything about what's going on in the club - and I'm fine with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.