New Investment Options

[MelvinBragg]

10 minutes ago, Casagolda said:

It is time for the Well Society board to step up. It is 6-1 in current board members against this proposal. That should be enough to put the whole thing in the bin with no need for a vote.

What if the majority of Society members disagree with the board? Not that I think it's the case, but for such a big issue surely members have to have a vote..?

[wellgirl]

1 minute ago, MelvinBragg said:

What if the majority of Society members disagree with the board? Not that I think it's the case, but for such a big issue surely members have to have a vote..?

I agree. The well society have told members from the outset there's going to be a vote - so what's the reason not to have one now? 

[santheman]

2 hours ago, MelvinBragg said:

I'd argue the value of some of the assets isn't written in stone. What's the value of Fir Park? Whatever someone's willing to pay for it? Same applies to players. Value of future income? Well, how do you forecast that? We could do a Falkirk and disappear to League One. I'm not suggesting it's a fair value that's been assigned but I think it's very hard to state that there is a specific value that Motherwell Football Club is worth...

I'm sure that in a reply from our finance director to Vietnam on P&B he was told that the executive board would explain the valuation of the club in a statement early next week.

Or maybe I just imagined it as my brain is becoming scrambled.

[weeyin]

2 hours ago, MelvinBragg said:

I'd argue the value of some of the assets isn't written in stone. What's the value of Fir Park? Whatever someone's willing to pay for it?

Not from an accounting perspective. Assets are valued at "Fair Market Value" or similar all the time. That applies to things like buildings and things like stock prices (that can fluctuate by the millsecond these days). It even applies to less tangible things like "Goodwill".

[steelboy]

20 minutes ago, MelvinBragg said:

What if the majority of Society members disagree with the board? 

The society has a constitution that needs to be changed before any votes which conflict with it can enacted.

For example if society members voted to disperse all funds to the members it still couldn't happen due to the society constitution and laws concerning Industrial and Provident Societies. 

[Casagolda]

31 minutes ago, MelvinBragg said:

What if the majority of Society members disagree with the board? Not that I think it's the case, but for such a big issue surely members have to have a vote..?

 

If Members disagree with the board they can call a general meeting and direct the board as they wish. As long as it is within the current rules of the society.

if someone wants to direct the board to do something outside the rules of the society then they need to propose an amendment to the rules of the well society, win that vote then they can vote on their motion to direct the board.

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, santheman said:

Or maybe I just imagined it as my brain is becoming scrambled.

You're not the only one San. 🤣

[dennyc]

No offence meant to anyone, and i know this won't be well received, but do we actually know what powers the Society has with regard to the football Club? We are all hung up on majority shareholding and seem to be assuming that what we say is what happens. 100%. On every matter. That as majority owners we dictate.

For instance, what % of Shareholders is required to bin an Exec Board Member? Not saying it is, but it could be 80%. Built into the constitution.  If you think about it, when the WS was created and moving towards 50% plus, the Exec Board would have been crazy to give that 50% plus the right to sack any one of them at the slightest excuse. That's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

It's fairly common for different actions to require different %s to vote in support.

Just saying we need to be cautious in what powers we assume the Society has. I do agree it is about time they started using those powers though. I'm certainly not defending the Exec Board, far from it, but I do think we need to know our facts before laying into the WS Board/ 

 

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, santheman said:

I'm sure that in a reply from our finance director to Vietnam on P&B he was told that the executive board would explain the valuation of the club in a statement early next week.

Or maybe I just imagined it as my brain is becoming scrambled.

He did, posted it earlier today.

[wellgirl]

3 hours ago, dennyc said:

No offence meant to anyone, and i know this won't be well received, but do we actually know what powers the Society has with regard to the football Club? We are all hung up on majority shareholding and seem to be assuming that what we say is what happens. 100%. On every matter. That as majority owners we dictate.

For instance, what % of Shareholders is required to bin an Exec Board Member? Not saying it is, but it could be 80%. Built into the constitution.  If you think about it, when the WS was created and moving towards 50% plus, the Exec Board would have been crazy to give that 50% plus the right to sack any one of them at the slightest excuse. That's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

It's fairly common for different actions to require different %s to vote in support.

Just saying we need to be cautious in what powers we assume the Society has. I do agree it is about time they started using those powers though. I'm certainly not defending the Exec Board, far from it, but I do think we need to know our facts before laying into the WS Board/ 

 

I'm not here to go in on the well society board. I just think that it's obvious that some fans don't want the vote just incase others vote yes. And that's not a good enough reason to get the vote binned. 

I don't think anyone has been transparent enough with the fans. And I think we should have been spoken to before Ben Banks.

I also think that if the society don't agree with the timescale then just say it. Fans are being asked to respond to an email. This has nothing to do with the election or the euros or the summer holidays. If people care enough to vote they will vote. 

There needs to be a proper update from the board and the Well Society board too. An honest one and if that means admitting that things aren't good between the MFC board and the Well Society - that needs to be aired. 

 

[David]

4 hours ago, MelvinBragg said:

What if the majority of Society members disagree with the board? Not that I think it's the case, but for such a big issue surely members have to have a vote..?

Who mentioned that the wider membership wouldn't get a vote on this? It's already been announced that a two-week ballot will open on 1st July. That is your vote.

4 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I agree. The well society have told members from the outset there's going to be a vote - so what's the reason not to have one now? 

See above? Who has said there won't be a vote?

5 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I'm not here to go in on the well society board. I just think that it's obvious that some fans don't want the vote just incase others vote yes. And that's not a good enough reason to get the vote binned. 

I don't think anyone has been transparent enough with the fans. And I think we should have been spoken to before Ben Banks.

I also think that if the society don't agree with the timescale then just say it. Fans are being asked to respond to an email. This has nothing to do with the election or the euros or the summer holidays. 

The level of transparency has largely been influenced by the NDAs that are undoubtedly in effect, or at least were during the executive board's initial discussions with Barmack.

Regarding the interview with Ben Banks, it serves as a means for the Society Board to communicate information and their perspectives to the fans. How else would you suggest they do this? Several board members have participated in the forums, including this one, and they are always accessible via email or PM here or on P&B.

[wellgirl]

8 minutes ago, David said:

Who mentioned that the wider membership wouldn't get a vote on this? It's already been announced that a two-week ballot will open on 1st July. That is your vote.

See above? Who has said there won't be a vote?

The level of transparency has largely been influenced by the NDAs that are undoubtedly in effect, or at least were during the executive board's initial discussions with Barmack.

Regarding the interview with Ben Banks, it serves as a means for the Society Board to communicate information and their perspectives to the fans. How else would you suggest they do this? Several board members have participated in the forums, including this one, and they are always accessible via email or PM here or on P&B.

People on pie and bov are saying that the deal has been binned and it's going back to the drawing board - because they've managed to persuade EB they don't want his deal - and I completely get that that's just a forum like this is - but that's what's been said by more than one poster over a couple of days. The jist is that they don't trust fans to vote no. So the deal has to be torched. 

Yes I do get they are accessible. I've emailed the society re some issues I wanted to raise. 

Ndas - understand. 

[David]

26 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

People on pie and bov are saying that the deal has been binned and it's going back to the drawing board - because they've managed to persuade EB they don't want his deal - and I completely get that that's just a forum like this is - but that's what's been said by more than one poster over a couple of days. The jist is that they don't trust fans to vote no. So the deal has to be torched.

Any changes to the deal or future plans will likely be announced through official channels, rather than on an internet forum.

I wouldn't give much credence to what's said here or there; it's all just opinions.

[wellgirl]

15 minutes ago, David said:

Any changes to the deal or future plans will likely be announced through official channels, rather than on an internet forum.

I wouldn't give much credence to what's said here or there; it's all just opinions.

It's a bit stronger than that over there - you're right. But I don't like the dynamic. Which seems to be that they've persuaded Erik to bin the deal because they don't trust the rest of us to vote no.  

People need to be allowed to make their own minds up. I might not agree with everyone elses point of view - but I'll defend their right to have it - even if it doesn't align with mine. 

I'll also say that I've given money to the well society when I've had the square root of eff all to spare - so anyone who thinks I don't believe in fan ownership (not aiming this at you) really doesn't know me very well. 

[SteelmaninOZ]

4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

You're not the only one San. 🤣

And that’s a fact 😉

[David]

27 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

It's a bit stronger than that over there - you're right. But I don't like the dynamic. Which seems to be that they've persuaded Erik to bin the deal because they don't trust the rest of us to vote no.  

I'm not quite sure where you've gotten that impression. Erik has a chance to get a top-flight football club for next to nothing. He's going nowhere until he's actively voted against.

28 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

People need to be allowed to make their own minds up. I might not agree with everyone elses point of view - but I'll defend their right to have it - even if it doesn't align with mine.

That's true. However, I fail to see any genuine benefit in this deal that would justify relinquishing control. In my view, any fan willing to vote in favour of this either doesn't fully understand how the deal is structured or values the club so little that they consider it almost worthless.

As I said before, and I don't apologise for repeating it:

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. 

32 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I'll also say that I've given money to the well society when I've had the square root of eff all to spare - so anyone who thinks I don't believe in fan ownership (not aiming this at you) really doesn't know me very well. 

So, if you’ve contributed money to the Well Society when you had virtually nothing to spare, you surely can’t be pleased with the idea of an “LA-based millionaire” coming in and demanding that nearly half a million pounds of OUR money be written off as a condition for his investment.

All in the name of, as he puts it, "a clean balance sheet."

 

[StAndrew7]

19 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

It's a bit stronger than that over there - you're right. But I don't like the dynamic. Which seems to be that they've persuaded Erik to bin the deal because they don't trust the rest of us to vote no. 

I don't think that's quite what people are saying.

The reason Barmack said he'll come back is the (quite vociferous in some cases) feedback and discussions he's received and had with posters there. That and the Society Board's statement on Monday. The conversation about the concerns re: the vote etc. came after he'd stated he'd come back with a revised offer/structure.

He's also said that he's concerned it'll be a pyrrhic victory if he does win currently, as it will likely split the fan base; he doesn't want to win this at all costs. Believe him or don't but that's what he's said on there.

I think there is (rightly) a concern on both P&B and here that they are both, to an extent, echo chambers. The deal as it stands is absolute dugshite; for the reasons we have all discussed over the last 5 days and the Society has laid out.

I think the majority of posters on here and P&B will have a far greater understanding of the proposal now thanks to discussions and work done by others to work through the valuations etc. 

I would argue that a fair chunk of the support who will have a vote via the WS, don't have that level of understanding and will see £2m investment and the chance of a TV deal and potentially take a punt.

Now, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, nor do I think either board or the posters on it are superior to the other or to fans who don't post on either, but you can absolutely argue that those who post on here and P&B will be better informed than those who don't. So, being honest, I think that there is reason to be concerned that this will get voted through in its current form if it comes to that.

Also, all of what @David just said, too.

[wellgirl]

8 hours ago, David said:

I'm not quite sure where you've gotten that impression. Erik has a chance to get a top-flight football club for next to nothing. He's going nowhere until he's actively voted against.

That's true. However, I fail to see any genuine benefit in this deal that would justify relinquishing control. In my view, any fan willing to vote in favour of this either doesn't fully understand how the deal is structured or values the club so little that they consider it almost worthless.

As I said before, and I don't apologise for repeating it:

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. 

So, if you’ve contributed money to the Well Society when you had virtually nothing to spare, you surely can’t be pleased with the idea of an “LA-based millionaire” coming in and demanding that nearly half a million pounds of OUR money be written off as a condition for his investment.

All in the name of, as he puts it, "a clean balance sheet."

 

I got that impression by reading posts on pie and bov yesterday where posters were indicating that the deal as it currently stands was effectively dead in the water and that Erik would be coming back with a revised deal. 

As for the board not being business savvy - there are two people on the board who run their own business. There's someone who works in financial services. One of the board members who was voted onto the board last summer ran and made statements that their business experience was what they would be bringing to the board. 

Theyve also voted to reject apart from Feely and Dickie.

 

I also think with respect that the well society board have had a number of years to plan for this possibility -the possibility of an approach from an outside investor. 

What some fans aren't happy with I expect is that this offer wasn't binned before it got to fans. 

[Well-Made]

I have stayed quiet since the details were sent out from the Well Society.

My first thoughts on the email started with the first line with them advising us to reject the offer, that isn't for them to decide what I do.

I also read the statement from the Club.

From there my thoughts turned to why do we have two vastly different opinions here and which one gains/loses the most.

You could read the email from the WS and feel like it's throwing the toys out of the pram because it loses control of the club but didn't they have a vote that resulted with the members saying they'd consider losing the majority if the deal was right? That is up to us members to have our individual thoughts on it, find out any information we need and decide.

Then you see that Dickie and Maureen Downie resign from the board for differences, so why hasn't the 3rd person that voted against not resigned?

Why has Dickie not confirmed his resignation from the Exec Board?

So we have in fighting on the WS, contempt apparently between the Exec Board towards the WS, so how can we possibly decide which statement is best for the club.

I have been on P&B and read all the posts from EB and those that try to have a conversation with useful information (trying to ignore the likes of Busta, being Busta that we all know and love  )

I have been encouraged by the fact that EB has taken on points from those conversations and is looking at not binning the offer but readjusting it slightly, whether that is enough to persuade folk it's the right or not will be up to them.

We also have still to see what the WS has proposed to raise extra funds.

When the football game came out, my thoughts were that they should have auctioned the places off rather than a set price, maybe this was done to make sure they covered their costs and made some money but in a time of cost of living crisis, the auction may have allowed other folk a chance. However, I was glad to see that those that did take part had fun.

From the start pf the week where I was probably a definite no, I may be sliding nearer to a maybe if EB can get the adjustments right. Or the WS show they have something to encourage they can finance the club better in the future.

However, if the WS do stay in control, the Exec Board need to acknowledge that and work properly with them not only as a failsafe but as a genuine part of running the club, so that may need the likes of Jay (only using that name as I don't the others, although I assume Amber has some of her Dad in her views to MFC) being on the board and making sure it's running to look after the club, finances and fans correctly.

Probably one of my longer posts in a while, but if you haven't already, I'd suggest going on P&B and looking at the discussions between EB and Vietnam91 particularly amongst others.

 

 

[Kmcalpin]

9 hours ago, David said:

In my view, any fan willing to vote in favour of this either doesn't fully understand how the deal is structured or values the club so little that they consider it almost worthless.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in this post, David, I think this statement is somewhat arrogant and patronising. I'm old enough and ugly enough to have been there and done this myself, to my regret. You might disagree with fellow Well fans as I sometimes do, but please don't denigrate them. Some fans may have opposite, but perfectly legitimate and sincerely held, views to you.

[steelboy]

1 hour ago, Well-Made said:

 

From the start pf the week where I was probably a definite no, I may be sliding nearer to a maybe if EB can get the adjustments right. Or the WS show they have something to encourage they can finance the club better in the future.

 

 

 

Firstly we are one of very few clubs to operate at a profit since the Well Society so we are financed just fine. During the same period our budgets have increased significantly as well: in 2019 the club spent £4m on wages, now it's up to £5m. The idea we need a new financial model is McMahon's lies to get the club out of the hands of the fans.

Secondly what kind of adjustments would it take to get you to vote for Barmack?

[MelvinBragg]

11 hours ago, David said:

Who mentioned that the wider membership wouldn't get a vote on this? It's already been announced that a two-week ballot will open on 1st July. That is your vote.

I was replying to a post (and I think quoted it) that suggested the proposal was so bad that there was no need for a vote, the Society Board should just reject it. I wasn't suggesting there wouldn't be one...

[wellgirl]

Just now, MelvinBragg said:

I was replying to a post that suggested the proposal was so bad that there was no need for a vote. I wasn't suggesting there wouldn't be one...

It was me who posted this originally - because there have been posters on pie and bov who have been talking in terms of the deal being dead because EB is going to come back with a revised offer. 

[steelboy]

13 minutes ago, MelvinBragg said:

I was replying to a post (and I think quoted it) that suggested the proposal was so bad that there was no need for a vote, the Society Board should just reject it. I wasn't suggesting there wouldn't be one...

It's questionable whether there is. Have the Society taken legal advice on whether it's appropriate to hold this vote? If they haven't then the board members are not taking their responsibilities seriously. I'll hopefully get an answer for this next week.

I've asked a question about the Society valuation of the shareholding by email and on here. No answer yet which is fair enough as it's a busy period but to me it's a simple question and one that the Society board should have been prepared for prior to all this going public on Monday.

As I've said and a few other have also pointed out it's a bad sign that we have Society board members complaining about the timing of a Society vote. If they didn't chose the timeframe who did? 

[Well-Made]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

Firstly we are one of very few clubs to operate at a profit since the Well Society so we are financed just fine. During the same period our budgets have increased significantly as well: in 2019 the club spent £4m on wages, now it's up to £5m. The idea we need a new financial model is McMahon's lies to get the club out of the hands of the fans.

Secondly what kind of adjustments would it take to get you to vote for Barmack?

I am aware that we have made profit since the WS have taken over but a lot of that was down to the sale of DT. We need similar to happen more frequently so we can have the money to invest where and when we want it. I am not for one minute saying that EB's money will make that difference.

However if we can get him on board with the WS retaining 51% and a reduction of the money the WS have to put in or to buy the club back, then that would be a start.

I support the WS and it's aims, I believe the club should be fan owned. However, before this investment talk came about we had heard nothing from the WS on how they were going to increase funds that it holds or needs to help the club grow.

So yes, I can see why people say being fan owned isn't working but if we can get a deal that is right and someone with fresh ideas and replace the current Exec Board, I'd be happy to consider it.