New Investment Options

[Spiderpig]

3 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The thing is though when the vote is clearly split - surely you would think there would be a mechanism in place to deal with that. 6 members want the deal and 3 don't so they vote the way the majority want for example. You wonder why that wasn't put in place. What to do in the event of split views on Society board? 

If the 9 ws members vote then you would like to think that they would all be for or against the proposal whatever it is but if not then a simple majority should be sufficient to determine the official WS position which would then determine how the WS reps on the club board vote.

Nothing here is rocket science it's simple democracy, it's time the WS board acted like major shareholders and reminded the Club board who's in charge.

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

I'm sorry but to me it's like someone being impressed that Sunak, Starmer or Flynn came to their workplace during a General Election campaign. He's posting on a message board to try and earn votes so the deal goes through and his net worth significantly increases (and the net worth of the the Well Society decreases by the same amount). 

He's playing a smart game. His first offer was terrible so he's using Social Media as a market research tool to finessese a new offer while doing the equivalent of 'kissing babies' by buttering up the electorate. At the same time he is avoiding all the hard questions about his bid and his plan for the club. 

Of course that's what he's doing, it's as transparent as the windows that Rangers fans enjoy licking during marching season.

Where have I said that he's convinced me of anything by what he's said on there?

The only thing that he's at least helped confirm or lead us to that I'm willing to take on is that the Club/Exec Board have withheld or significantly watered down feedback from the WS Board.

All I said initially was that I thought it was fair enough he was engaging, if you want to extrapolate that point to calling me naive and lecturing me, on you go. I'm far from that and all it continues to do is show just how disparaging you can be about your fellow fans because it's how you want to choose to think of me and others on here.

[Kmcalpin]

13 minutes ago, David said:

To be fair to the boards of both entities, they're not really in the same position as he is. He's an individual who's trying to rescue a deal that has an incredible upside for him and his business.

The boards of both club and Society can't really come out on a public internet forum and start chatting away. It doesn't work like that with such entities.

Yes, they are in slightly different positions. That said, as with most things in life, there's a middle line to be trod. I certainly don't expect the club or the Society to start chatting away about every detailed aspect of the issue, on social media, but they could answer basic factual questions or correct inaccuracies for example, or provide updates. 

On a different point made by some others both here and on P & B, many fans, including me, don't understand all the technicalities. That might well, unfortunately, be reflected in the final vote. It would be great if some uninvolved honest broker could give their objective opinion on the offer, as it currently stands. That would cut out the rhetoric and emotion from the discussion and help us to understand the competing arguments. . 

[wellgirl]

1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said:

Yes, they are in slightly different positions. That said, as with most things in life, there's a middle line to be trod. I certainly don't expect the club or the Society to start chatting away about every detailed aspect of the issue, on social media, but they could answer basic factual questions or correct inaccuracies for example, or provide updates. 

On a different point made by some others both here and on P & B, many fans, including me, don't understand all the technicalities. That might well, unfortunately, be reflected in the final vote. It would be great if some uninvolved honest broker could give their objective opinion on the offer, as it currently stands. That would cut out the rhetoric and emotion from the discussion and help us to understand the competing arguments. . 

I agree. Particularly the society as they've advised fans not to accept the deal. 

[wellgirl]

I personally don't think EB needs Motherwell fc to raise his wealth. He's a millionaire - if this deal doesn't go through he can easily try and invest in another club. 

[texanwellfan]

14 hours ago, wunderwell said:

I like being right!

You’re not married then? 

[steelboy]

4 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

Of course that's what he's doing, it's as transparent as the windows that Rangers fans enjoy licking during marching season.

Where have I said that he's convinced me of anything by what he's said on there?

The only thing that he's at least helped confirm or lead us to that I'm willing to take on is that the Club/Exec Board have withheld or significantly watered down feedback from the WS Board.

All I said initially was that I thought it was fair enough he was engaging, if you want to extrapolate that point to calling me naive and lecturing me, on you go. I'm far from that and all it continues to do is show just how disparaging you can be about your fellow fans because it's how you want to choose to think of me and others on here.

I'm not particularly having a go at you but the more he posts the more people seem to be impressed by it. It's like if a marketing company phone your house, the person might be friendly and engaging but they are doing it for money and trying to get something out of you. 

I just don't want to see a false equivalence created between Barmack and The Well Society. Everyone should remember he's a businessman trying to buy an asset at an undervalued price due to a bitter old man in his 70s having a tantrum. He's not talking to Motherwell fans because he enjoys the dialouge he's doing because it's potentially worth millions of pounds to his net worth and all he has to do is get enough Well Society members onside.

It's about transferring the community owned wealth of our Well Society to a Californian millionaire. It's that simple.

[David]

10 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Yes, they are in slightly different positions. That said, as with most things in life, there's a middle line to be trod. I certainly don't expect the club or the Society to start chatting away about every detailed aspect of the issue, on social media, but they could answer basic factual questions or correct inaccuracies for example, or provide updates. 

On this particular deal? It really depends how the MOU is structured (assuming there is one), and how any NDA's involved are framed. It could be that the club and Society aren't legally allowed to discuss the intricate details of the deal.

Barmack, for all that he's being active on P&B, isn't actually saying all that much of substance. I've been reading most of what he's posted, and the only takeaway that I've got from it all is that he's come to his valuation of our club by using a rough approach that involves what Newcastle United is worth and that he's trying hard to sell himself as an honest guy with our best interests at heart.

Which may be true, by the way. I doubt it, though.

In my experience of dealing with investors and VC over the past ten plus years I have found that these guys aren't coming in and burning through the one commodity that they treasure above all else, which is time, to pursue a deal where they don't get much upside. 

That's simply not how they work. I find it hard to believe he simply woke up six months ago and decided he wanted to work with the fan ownership group at a club he'd never heard of before, all to help said club consistently finish in the top six.

There's an end game here. And that's not a bad thing in itself. But, I'd much rather work with an investor who lays it all out and says "This is what I'm proposing, and the reason for that is because the club will benefit in X way, and I'll benefit in Y way, then I can move on to the next investment opportunity a richer man, and leave you guys in a better position."

Again, I'm only going by my experience, but when investors start talking about "enthusiasm," "working alongside ordinary supporters" and so forth, especially when that kind of language is used without an actual plan? It sets alarm bells off. 

34 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

On a different point made by some others both here and on P & B, many fans, including me, don't understand all the technicalities. That might well, unfortunately, be reflected in the final vote. It would be great if some uninvolved honest broker could give their objective opinion on the offer, as it currently stands. That would cut out the rhetoric and emotion from the discussion and help us to understand the competing arguments.

At the risk of sounding like a bit of a prick, do fans really need to be able to under the technicalities of the following to know it's a bad deal?

The plan that has been suggested at the moment, from what I can see, basically consists of the following:

• Barmack "invests" £1.95 million over six years. For this, he will receive 49% ownership, with 8% ownership from the beginning
• The Well Society has to invest £1.35 million over six years. For this, we will lose 25% of our shares.
• Barmack also becomes Chairman with the deciding vote in any tie.

So, he invests £1.95 million to see an increase in shareholding to the tune of 49%, while we, the fans, invest an additional £1.35 million to lose 25% of our shareholding. 

I've never been involved in any business deal where that kind of thing is suggested. Ever. Why? Because it's ridiculous. In any normal business setting, it would be laughed out of the room, and the party suggesting it would be roundly ridiculed. 

Oh, and on top of the above, we also need to agree to write off 50% of our loan to the club to the tune of £434,000. That is money that fans, including pensioners and people who are not well off, have paid to the Society in good faith, by the way. 

Almost half a million pounds of our money, just written off. Gone. 

So, with all of that said, what do we get in return? 

A multi-page business plan that shows why we need him on board? An exciting vision of the future under his chairmanship?

No.

We get talk of "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects rather than short-term player acquisitions" and incredibly vague chit-chat about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence."

Do you want to know what I think?

I think that the above would be considered derisory by any competent board in the world of business. 

But, Barmack has found a well-run entity that's involved in a league that is looking at an uptick in TV and sponsorship money coming over the next five or so years and has realised it's "fan-run."

Which, in the mind of an investor and businessman from Los Angeles, as the club board keep describing him, means that it's run by simple folks who won't understand all the technicalities and who, in his likely view, are simply too fucking stupid to understand exactly what all this means. 

He wants the club on the cheap, and not only that, he wants us to actually pay for much of it. If you add in the money The Society would be losing on top of the contributions we'd need to make, it would actually mean that our total financial contribution over the six years would be £1,784,000 for the privilege of losing 25% of our shares, while he contributes £166,000 more than us over the same period for an increase in 48% of shareholding.

You want an honest assessment? He thinks we're mugs. And sadly, going by some of the responses I've seen, he's correct to an extent. I always feared that while fan ownership is a good thing, it does leave us open to business predators who simply see an asset that is owned by a large group of people who, for the most part, aren't business-savvy. 

As he said today on P&B:

"By the way, I think the offer has a better chance than many of you do -- if you follow politics closely, as I do, you can see examples on Twitter and message boards of a block that clearly don't like a proposal or politician, and are certain that their points are unanimous, only to see the quieter side of a voting block feel differently.  As one touch-point, there was a poll on Twitter about our offer, and I believe it was 30 for / 70 against, and I think you have to consider a bit who's voting on a Twitter poll to realize that the fan-base might be more divided than this thread suggests. So, I'm not throwing in the towel."

You're damn right he's not throwing in the towel. This could be one of the more lucrative deals he makes in years. Not because the club generates large sums of money but because he's basically securing a top-flight football club for less than the price of a three-bed house in Wishaw.

47 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I personally don't think EB needs Motherwell fc to raise his wealth. He's a millionaire - if this deal doesn't go through he can easily try and invest in another club.

I don't agree. The reason why he's pushing for this deal with us is because of the decision-makers and structure of the club. 

Could you imagine him going to someone like Roy MacGregor with an offer like this? Or even better, let's send him round to speak to Anne Budge and Hearts with a similar offer.

So no, he knows that if he went to another club that was owned and run by someone from the actual business and investment world, he'd get laughed out of the building.

[bobbybingo]

11 minutes ago, steelboy said:

I'm not particularly having a go at you but the more he posts the more people seem to be impressed by it. It's like if a marketing company phone your house, the person might be friendly and engaging but they are doing it for money and trying to get something out of you. 

I just don't want to a false equivalence created between Barmack and The Well Society. Everyone should remember he's a business man trying to buy an asset at an undervalued price due to a bitter old man in his 70s having a tantrum. He's not talking to Motherwell fans because he enjoys the dialouge he's doing because it's potentially worth millions of pounds to his net worth and all he has to is get enough Well Society members onside.

It's about transferring the community owned wealth of our Well Society to a Californian millionaire. It's that simple.

Not being funny, but you should get onto Pie & Bovril, challenge him directly, or at least engage directly with the folk you think are falling for his patter.

[David]

5 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

Not being funny, but you should get onto Pie & Bovril, challenge him directly, or at least engage directly with the folk you think are falling for his patter.

In all honesty? I'm not even sure it is him. I'm more of the belief that it's a member of his team who helped put this deal together, or a PR person. Or maybe even both using the one account. In my experience, guys like him rarely have the time interact as much as he has.

[wellgirl]

10 minutes ago, David said:

On this particular deal? It really depends how the MOU is structured (assuming there is one), and how any NDA's involved are framed. It could be that the club and Society aren't legally allowed to discuss the intricate details of the deal.

Barmack, for all that he's being active on P&B, isn't actually saying all that much of substance. I've been reading most of what he's posted, and the only takeaway that I've got from it all is that he's come to his valuation of our club by using a rough approach that involves what Newcastle United is worth and that he's trying hard to sell himself as an honest guy with our best interests at heart.

Which may be true, by the way. I doubt it, though.

In my experience of dealing with investors and VC over the past ten plus years I have found that these guys aren't coming in and burning through the one commodity that they treasure above all else, which is time, to pursue a deal where they don't get much upside. 

That's simply not how they work. I find it hard to believe he simply woke up six months ago and decided he wanted to work with the fan ownership group at a club he'd never heard of before, all to help said club consistently finish in the top six.

There's an end game here. And that's not a bad thing in itself. But, I'd much rather work with an investor who lays it all out and says "This is what I'm proposing, and the reason for that is because the club will benefit in X way, and I'll benefit in Y way, then I can move on to the next investment opportunity a richer man, and leave you guys in a better position."

Again, I'm only going by my experience, but when investors start talking about "enthusiasm," "working alongside ordinary supporters" and so forth, especially when that kind of language is used without an actual plan? It sets alarm bells off. 

At the risk of sounding like a bit of a prick, do fans really need to be able to under the technicalities of the following to know it's a bad deal?

The plan that has been suggested at the moment, from what I can see, basically consists of the following:

• Barmack "invests" £1.95 million over six years. For this, he will receive 49% ownership, with 8% ownership from the beginning
• The Well Society has to invest £1.35 million over six years. For this, we will lose 25% of our shares.
• Barmack also becomes Chairman with the deciding vote in any tie.

So, he invests £1.95 million to see an increase in shareholding to the tune of 49%, while we, the fans, invest an additional £1.35 million to lose 25% of our shareholding. 

I've never been involved in any business deal where that kind of thing is suggested. Ever. Why? Because it's ridiculous. In any normal business setting, it would be laughed out of the room, and the party suggesting it would be roundly ridiculed. 

Oh, and on top of the above, we also need to agree to write off 50% of our loan to the club to the tune of £434,000. That is money that fans, including pensioners and people who are not well off, have paid to the Society in good faith, by the way. 

Almost half a million pounds of our money, just written off. Gone. 

So, with all of that said, what do we get in return? 

A multi-page business plan that shows why we need him on board? An exciting vision of the future under his chairmanship?

No.

We get talk of "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects rather than short-term player acquisitions" and incredibly vague chit-chat about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence."

Do you want to know what I think?

I think that the above would be considered derisory by any competent board in the world of business. 

But, Barmack has found a well-run entity that's involved in a league that is looking at an uptick in TV and sponsorship money coming over the next five or so years and has realised it's "fan-run."

Which, in the mind of an investor and businessman from Los Angeles, as the club board keep describing him, means that it's run by simple folks who won't understand all the technicalities and who, in his likely view, are simply too fucking stupid to understand exactly what all this means. 

He wants the club on the cheap, and not only that, he wants us to actually pay for much of it. If you add in the money The Society would be losing on top of the contributions we'd need to make, it would actually mean that our total financial contribution over the six years would be £1,784,000 for the privilege of losing 25% of our shares, while he contributes £166,000 more than us over the same period for an increase in 48% of shareholding.

You want an honest assessment? He thinks we're mugs. And sadly, going by some of the responses I've seen, he's correct to an extent. I always feared that while fan ownership is a good thing, it does leave us open to business predators who simply see an asset that is owned by a large group of people who, for the most part, aren't business-savvy. 

As he said today on P&B:

"By the way, I think the offer has a better chance than many of you do -- if you follow politics closely, as I do, you can see examples on Twitter and message boards of a block that clearly don't like a proposal or politician, and are certain that their points are unanimous, only to see the quieter side of a voting block feel differently.  As one touch-point, there was a poll on Twitter about our offer, and I believe it was 30 for / 70 against, and I think you have to consider a bit who's voting on a Twitter poll to realize that the fan-base might be more divided than this thread suggests. So, I'm not throwing in the towel."

You're damn right he's not throwing in the towel. This could be one of the more lucrative deals he makes in years. Not because the club generates large sums of money but because he's basically securing a top-flight football club for less than the price of a three-bed house in Wishaw.

I don't agree. The reason why he's pushing for this deal with us is because of the decision-makers and structure of the club. 

Could you imagine him going to someone like Roy MacGregor with an offer like this? Or even better, let's send him round to speak to Anne Budge and Hearts with a similar offer.

So no, he knows that if he went to another club that was owned and run by someone from the actual business and investment world, he'd get laughed out of the building.

The reason I mentioned other clubs was that he referred to it in his interview with the BBC. 

I'm not dismissing your views - but we've been fan owned for 8 years now. It's not like the Well Society has just come into operation and someone is trying to take our club over. There are also people who have been on the board for more than one stint now. 

 

[David]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

The reason I mentioned other clubs was that he referred to it in his interview with the BBC. 

I'm not dismissing your views - but we've been fan owned for 8 years now. It's not like the Well Society has just come into operation and someone is trying to take our club over. There are also people who have been on the board for more than one stint now. 

Oh, he's always going to claim that other clubs are "in the mix." It's a typical tactic used to put pressure on the selling party. If they believe the deal could be taken away and offered elsewhere, it sometimes helps to expedite proceedings.

I seriously doubt that any club currently managed by a competent owner or board would entertain his offer.

And while you are correct that we have been fan-owned for a while, the video released and the tone of the message from our club board always had the potential to act like "blood in the water" when there are sharks nearby.

[bobbybingo]

4 minutes ago, David said:

In all honesty? I'm not even sure it is him. I'm more of the belief that it's a member of his team who helped put this deal together, or a PR person. Or maybe even both using the one account. In my experience, guys like him rarely have the time interact as much as he has.

Even if it's not the man himself, it's someone working on his behalf. As close as we're getting at this stage.

[texanwellfan]

So does this offer have to be formally refused before he proposes a revised offer? While I see many references to the WS board members voting, the actual yes/no vote will be from the majority vote of the well society members, right? The WS board will then relay that result to MFC EB, right? It seems that there would be some non negotiable requirements for any revised proposal from EB but who will establish those requirements? Having hundreds of people, voting as one entity and owning 71% of the shares adds some extra complexity to the situation. Fairly straightforward to take a yes/no vote and feed that result back but a bit more complicated to generate a document with requirements. Who’s draws it up and who approves it? WS board members? Another society vote ? In the interests of expediency for both sides I think EB needs to know what non negotiables any acceptable offer must contain (or not contain) the if there are any deal breakers there we are finished and can move on. 

[David]

1 minute ago, bobbybingo said:

Even if it's not the man himself, it's someone working on his behalf. As close as we're getting at this stage.

That's true. I'm just saying that it likely won't actually be him. Companies I've worked with usually have a PR lead or a team of a few people running social media accounts, preparing statements, answering emails and dealing with all manner of comms for a CEO. Often because the CEO doesn't have the time, and also to ensure they don't accidentally say anything that could come back to bite them on the arse.

[texanwellfan]

10 minutes ago, David said:

In all honesty? I'm not even sure it is him. I'm more of the belief that it's a member of his team who helped put this deal together, or a PR person. Or maybe even both using the one account. In my experience, guys like him rarely have the time interact as much as he has.

Fair point but either way we are effectively conversing with him albeit perhaps indirectly

sorry: posted before seeing BB’s post

[wellgirl]

2 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

So does this offer have to be formally refused before he proposes a revised offer? While I see many references to the WS board members voting, the actual yes/no vote will be from the majority vote of the well society members, right? The WS board will then relay that result to MFC EB, right? It seems that there would be some non negotiable requirements for any revised proposal from EB but who will establish those requirements? Having hundreds of people, voting as one entity and owning 71% of the shares adds some extra complexity to the situation. Fairly straightforward to take a yes/no vote and feed that result back but a bit more complicated to generate a document with requirements. Who’s draws it up and who approves it? WS board members? Another society vote ? In the interests of expediency for both sides I think EB needs to know what non negotiables any acceptable offer must contain (or not contain) the if there are any deal breakers there we are finished and can move on. 

I would think yes and yes its well society members who will be voting - shareholders too I think. As for the rest of the questions I have no idea. 

[wellgirl]

2 minutes ago, David said:

That's true. I'm just saying that it likely won't actually be him. Companies I've worked with usually have a PR lead or a team of a few people running social media accounts, preparing statements, answering emails and dealing with all manner of comms for a CEO. Often because the CEO doesn't have the time, and also to ensure they don't accidentally say anything that could come back to bite them on the arse.

I think it's him. He seems to run his own twitter as well. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Fair point but either way we are effectively conversing with him albeit perhaps indirectly

I know it may come across as cynical, but there's a better-than-average chance that his interactions over there are nothing more than a PR push to help create a friendly face for the business deal. I've seen similar tactics before.

If such a tactic weren't used, he'd still be considered the evil millionaire from LA trying to snatch our club for a pittance. 

Now he's a "nice millionaire" who's taking time from his important and busy life to reach down and converse with the plebs. 

But hey, it seems to be working, so you can't fault him or his team.

[steelboy]

1 minute ago, David said:

That's true. I'm just saying that it likely won't actually be him. Companies I've worked with usually have a PR lead or a team of a few people running social media accounts, preparing statements, answering emails and dealing with all manner of comms for a CEO. Often because the CEO doesn't have the time, and also to ensure they don't accidentally say anything that could come back to bite them on the arse.

Is he even that big time though?

There has been zero due diligence done on him, his net worth, his outstanding debts. He's a guy with a production company which has made a few straight to streaming movies which obviously isn't nothing but doesn't mean much in California.

The fact that he is only fronting up with £300,000 doesn't suggest he's super wealthy.

 

[David]

Just now, steelboy said:

Is he even that big time though?

There has been zero due diligence done on him, his net worth, his outstanding debts. He's a guy with a production company which has made a few straight to streaming movies which obviously isn't nothing but doesn't mean much in California.

The fact that he is only fronting up with £300,000 doesn't suggest he's super wealthy.

Even so, he'll still be very busy. Someone at that level will likely have a PR team working for him at least, and that's where they'll come in. There's a reason why this kind of approach is taking place.

[steelboy]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Even so, he'll still be very busy. Someone at that level will likely have a PR team working for him at least, and that's where they'll come in. There's a reason why this kind of approach is taking place.

I think you might be over rating him.

He's quite active online, he published a long two part article about the benefits of AI in film production recently (basically making people unemployed and increasing profits). I get the impression he's more of a wheeler dealer than captain of industry.

[David]

3 minutes ago, steelboy said:

I think you might be over rating him.

He's quite active online, he published a long two part article about the benefits of AI in film production recently (basically making people unemployed and increasing profits). I get the impression he's more of a wheeler dealer than captain of industry.

Not at all. You'd be surprised how low-level executives can be and still have a small team of people working around him. I've seen it. 

Also, when it comes to matters online, you need to take everything with a pinch of salt. I'd wager a good sum of money that Barmack did nothing more than sign off on that article. The reason for me thinking that is that I've worked previously for companies where I've seen that actually happen. Even a CEO's quotes for a press release or media interview aren't his own. His or her team create them and they just sign off on them.

Not that any of this really matters, mind you. The bigger picture is the actual deal itself.

[texanwellfan]

34 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I would think yes and yes its well society members who will be voting - shareholders too I think. As for the rest of the questions I have no idea. 

Since WS have 71% of shares it doesn’t really matter that the other shareholders will be voting, right? 

[bobbybingo]

3 minutes ago, David said:

Not at all. You'd be surprised how low-level executives can be and still have a small team of people working around him. I've seen it. 

Also, when it comes to matters online, you need to take everything with a pinch of salt. I'd wager a good sum of money that Barmack did nothing more than sign off on that article. The reason for me thinking that is that I've worked previously for companies where I've seen that actually happen. Even a CEO's quotes for a press release or media interview aren't his own. His or her team create them and they just sign off on them.

Not that any of this really matters, mind you. The bigger picture is the actual deal itself.

Signing off on quotes or articles written by others is one thing, telling someone else to go online and get involved in conversations with fans is another thing entirely. Why take the chance an employee inadvertantly says something to piss off a group of extremely easily pissed off people when you're trying to butter them up?