New Investment Options

[Kmcalpin]

I think what the past few days have highlighted is that there are major issues with the Executive Board (name should be changed to Club Board) and the Society Board.  Although we saw positive change last year to the WS Board, more fresh blood is now required due to resignations. The make up of the Executive Board also needs to be examined as a matter of urgency.  We need a settled, forward looklng leadership.

I believe there have been some interested local parties who approached the club to invest in the recent past. Without knowing the details, perhaps this avenue could be looked at again?

The bottom line is that the WS needs to take control of the Executive Board, being the major shareholder.

As far as external investment goes, we require it, not to plug financial holes or to try to improve our status in Scottish football but to consolidate our position, both on but also off the field. That investment has to be right for us though. MFC is our club.  

Still, I'm looking forward to seeing what this week brings both on and especially off the field.

[dennyc]

57 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

As a life long supporter of the club and a non member of the WS I can only say that from the details we have so far this investment deal looks like a crock of shit.

A few points seem obvious

1. The governance of the WS from its formation until recently has been an ineffective shambles, taking in millions from the fans with no proper control on where or how that money was spent.

2. The existing club board have used the Fans/ WS as a piggy bank to raid whenever they wanted and the WS were compliant in allowing them to do so. Now they are desperate to get their cash out and walk away.

3. The deal they are so keen to endorse is basically selling the club to Barmack at a knock down price and at the same time fundamentally rendering the WS useless by taking their cash to reduce their own shareholding ffs, but they won't give a toss as they will have their cash and dissappear into the sunset.

4. So after the dust settles Barmack will quietly buy up the private share holdings to gain majority control without any prospect of interference from the WS which means the millions contributed by the members will have all been for nothing.

5. The club will then be in the hands of someone with no great love of football other than seeing a profit from selling it on when he inevitably gets bored.

The club really needs to tell these investors to GTF and get it's own house in order first with proper and effective governance for the WS and the club board and then an only then can suitable investment be sought when there are effective safeguards in place to protect the club and its fans, especially the subscribing WS members.

Entirely as I see it. We agree.

The only thing I would add is that since last year's changes to the WS Board, the new regime has been trying to effect change whilst battling internal barriers (Hopefully those barriers will soon be history). Seeking a return to original operating principles and testing more closely any request from MFC or other bodies for the release of those monies. So that is to their credit.

It does strike me that it is no coincidence this attempt to diminish the Society further comes at a time when uncomfortable questions were being posed and the Club Board's influence within the Society was under threat. Suddenly the Society is not as compliant and so McMahon etc are under pressure. 

 

 

[numpty]

5 hours ago, bobbybingo said:

The worrying thing is, you have someone saying, those communications are none of my business and I won't take them into account when voting. There's none so blind.

I'd be more concerned about the legality of sharing them, as there appears to be precedent in Scots law for reasonable expectation of privacy in WhatsApp group chats.

[StAndrew7]

8 minutes ago, numpty said:

I'd be more concerned about the legality of sharing them, as there appears to be precedent in Scots law for reasonable expectation of privacy in WhatsApp group chats.

I have to admit, I did wonder about that being an issue when they were posted.

[steelboy]

6 minutes ago, numpty said:

I'd be more concerned about the legality of sharing them, as there appears to be precedent in Scots law for reasonable expectation of privacy in WhatsApp group chats.

That was a dodgy judge looking out for racist polis. The ruling got overturned.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/16/scottish-police-officers-lose-disciplinary-fight-over-racist-messages

This is also a different matter as it's someone in the conversation publishing rather than a third party demanding access. 

[David]

5 minutes ago, numpty said:

I'd be more concerned about the legality of sharing them, as there appears to be precedent in Scots law for reasonable expectation of privacy in WhatsApp group chats.

Really? You’re more concerned about that than Barmack openly discussing his ridiculous plans on internet forums and WhatsApp with people not involved with the club? His language and content doesn't suggest he’s serious about these negotiations.

It’s very concerning that anyone would vote on the club’s future based only on the interested party’s curated information, ignoring the nitty gritty behind it.

There’s ignorance, and then there’s willful ignorance.

[Stuwell2]

4 hours ago, steelboy said:

In return for their investment, the Barmacks receive a % of these new shares which eventually would result in them owning 49% of the new total share capital issued by the club (i.e. 49% of the total of the club’s existing share capital plus the new shares issued over the 6 years).

On each occasion a batch of new shares is issued, then the remainder of the shares being issued which are not allotted to the Barmacks, will be made available for purchase by all the current existing shareholders (the WS and others) based on their current shareholding (i.e. a current other shareholder with a 1% holding could not acquire 10% of the remaining new shares even if they so desired but could acquire 1% of them).  

I've just seen Vietnam91 post this on P&B which is a response from the club about the new share issues and who can buy. It is in conflict with the document on Monday which says private shareholders will get the chance to buy pro rata from all shares issued and doesn't say anything about the Well Society getting the opportunity to buy pro rata. Now they are saying WS will get the chance to buy pro rata but there is no detail on the size of the issue or price of the shares. This opens up the possibility that in year 6 when the issue will be at the largest size the Well Society will have run out of cash and private investors will be able to buy up a large part of the club.

When it says "new shares issued" here does it mean of all new shares issued that year or another amount which they are keeping secret so far?

3-  The current shareholders in MFC are WS 71% – other shareholders 29%.

4-  Other shareholders will have the right to subscribe for their pro rata amount each year eg if a shareholder owns 1% at present, they will be entitled to subscribe for 1% of the new shares issued. If they do that, it will reduce the amounts the WS need to subscribe and the number of shares they receive on that share issue.

 

Ok how about this, at the moment under the current proposal as I understand it - and my figures are rough calculations due to being on holiday and no time to dig deeper - after 6 years

EB has 49% paying £1.8M

Private shareholders will have 29% paying £1.16M (if my quick guess of what they’re valued at taking the £4M valuation is correct and anyone feel free to admen if any of my figures are wrong)

WS will have 22% paying £2M

 

Why not have the WS buy out the private shareholders for £1.16M then look at new investment, giving up a maximum of 49% for £1.9M (using £800K of that to repay some of the £1.16M)

Over the 6 years saving the WS £840K and keeping the WS as majority shareholder in the club. 
If done correctly, I’d think that some non WS folk would sign up, existing members will continue to pay in/start paying again/up payments if possible. 
I know this would be a bit unfair on the private shareholders but I can’t see any other way to resolve this and keep the society as the majority shareholding.

Sorry it’s a bit rough and ready but just an idea. 

[numpty]

2 hours ago, David said:

Really? You’re more concerned about that than Barmack openly discussing his ridiculous plans on internet forums and WhatsApp with people not involved with the club?

What he chooses to discuss on the forums is up to him and his team... certainly seems a bit ill-advised to me, but he's made a lot more money doing what he does than I ever will, so you have to assume he either knows what he's doing, or thinks he does. Either way, it's his choice.

So yes, the thought that more suitable investors might be put off from dealing with us in future because we now apparently have previous for leaking private conversations during negotiations does concern me more than that.

[Stuwell2]

17 minutes ago, numpty said:

So yes, the thought that more suitable investors might be put off from dealing with us in future because we now apparently have previous for leaking private conversations does concern me more than that.

I’d see your point if the guy that posted the conversation’s is an official of the club or society and the leaks were official corespondents but since I don’t know who the guy is then at the moment I’m not concerned. 

[David]

33 minutes ago, numpty said:

So yes, the thought that more suitable investors might be put off from dealing with us in future because we now apparently have previous for leaking private conversations during negotiations does concern me more than that.

If other potential investors keep discussions within the negotiating team (such as the executive and society boards), they needn't worry.

I'd focus more on the content of Barmack's messages rather than his confidentiality concerns.

[Well-Made]

8 hours ago, David said:

Really? You’re more concerned about that than Barmack openly discussing his ridiculous plans on internet forums and WhatsApp with people not involved with the club? His language and content doesn't suggest he’s serious about these negotiations.

It’s very concerning that anyone would vote on the club’s future based only on the interested party’s curated information, ignoring the nitty gritty behind it.

There’s ignorance, and then there’s willful ignorance.

The thing here is David, its a grey area, if it was done on these boards we'd probably be looking at removing them. They may be posted from someone taking part in the chat BUT and is a big but, that is a private conversation and there is nothing to say that the other party agreed to it and if any of the text was changed before posting, especially as some parts have been highlighted.

So there could be legal ramifications for the poster at least if not the forum owner.

 

[steelboy]

@StAndrew7

I saw your comment about not emailing on P&B but I'd appreciate if you would ask this as a private shareholder.

The number of shares available in each of the 6 annual subscriptions and who are they allocated to?

The price per share in each of the 6 subscriptions for (i) Erik Barmack (ii) private shareholders (iii)the Well Society?

Cheers

[steelboy]

It will be another big day today I think. We'll find out if the club are going to back down or double down and we might even see Tom Feeley come out of hiding.

 

[StAndrew7]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

@StAndrew7

I saw your comment about not emailing on P&B but I'd appreciate if you would ask this as a private shareholder.

The number of shares available in each of the 6 annual subscriptions and who are they allocated to?

The price per share in each of the 6 subscriptions for (i) Erik Barmack (ii) private shareholders (iii)the Well Society?

Cheers

Back to work today after a few days off, so will hopefully get to it later. Will also wait until the club update and see what's in there, too.

[steelboy]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:09 PM, Dee said:

Myself and Phil Speedie had a chat with Ben Banks about Erik's proposal. 

https://www.glasgowworld.com/sport/well-society-opposition-to-motherwell-investment-proposals-explained-4666102

More than happy to answer any questions here should any members want clarity or a bit more info into our reasonings and the next steps. 

 

On 6/14/2024 at 2:58 PM, steelboy said:

So if the valuation is wrong why are they allowing a dishonest prospectus to be voted on? Is that legal? 

When are they going to present the Society's own valuation of the shareholding?

I'm still hoping for some answers Derek. Cheers. 

[David]

7 hours ago, Well-Made said:

The thing here is David, its a grey area, if it was done on these boards we'd probably be looking at removing them. They may be posted from someone taking part in the chat BUT and is a big but, that is a private conversation and there is nothing to say that the other party agreed to it and if any of the text was changed before posting, especially as some parts have been highlighted.

So there could be legal ramifications for the poster at least if not the forum owner.

I accept that, and it's up to the individual who posted the information to deal with the consequences, if any. They likely understood the impact of sharing conversations where a millionaire revealed some startling information.

They could have easily considered your point and kept the messages private. Let's be honest, 99% of people would have done that.

But they didn't. They've shown a level of courage rarely seen at our club's executive level and, in my opinion, should be commended as a whistleblower. If this deal is rejected, as I believe it should be, they will have done the club's fanbase a great service.

What I'm arguing against are those who say they would ignore this information and vote based solely on the "shiny brochure," as someone else put it.

Voting only on what Barmack's polished plan says, rather than his actual words and true intentions, is incredibly naive and mind-boggling.

[santheman]

Amongst my circle of Well fans I found that initially most of them were slightly intrigued (and some won over)by the glamour of an American investor.

When the actual figures came out every one of them completely changed their stance.

I'm hoping that my circle of mixed age group some who are social media savvy and some who never use it is a representative of the wider fan base and see the current offer for what it is, a non starter.

[David]

I just noticed the club update on the website says, "The club will address these by providing a comprehensive update early next week."

I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn it originally said Monday? Where did I get the idea that we were hearing something today?

[ropy]

6 minutes ago, David said:

I just noticed the club update on the website says, "The club will address these by providing a comprehensive update early next week."

I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn it originally said Monday? Where did I get the idea that we were hearing something today?

It referred to the original update last Monday and EB suggested Monday but it was always early this week.

[David]

Just now, ropy said:

It referred to the original update last Monday and EB suggested Monday but it was always early this week.

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I was starting to wonder if I'd imagined Monday 😂

[Well-Made]

23 minutes ago, David said:

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I was starting to wonder if I'd imagined Monday 😂

I also had today in mind.

[weeyin]

2 hours ago, santheman said:

Amongst my circle of Well fans I found that initially most of them were slightly intrigued (and some won over)by the glamour of an American investor.

That makes sense from a fans' perspective.

I feel like some the Board were also swayed by the glamour, rather than focusing on the cold, hard details of the negotiation.

[StAndrew7]

On 6/17/2024 at 9:05 AM, steelboy said:

 

I'm still hoping for some answers Derek. Cheers. 

You heard anything on this, @steelboy?

I fear (and I'm sure others do, too) the Society might miss their opportunity to have their say properly if they wait on a statement from the Club being issued, or a renewed offer comes from Barmack...

[Spiderpig]

20 hours ago, weeyin said:

That makes sense from a fans' perspective.

I feel like some the Board were also swayed by the glamour, rather than focusing on the cold, hard details of the negotiation.

The board want away with their cash ASAP, the hard details are of no interest to them as it will no longer be their problem. I get the impression none of them gives a feck what could potentially happen to the club.

[Ballso]

You do realise that the board don’t personally make any cash from this don’t you?