StAndrew7 Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 Just now, steelboy said: The '29%' thing is nonsense. There is no 29% shareholding bloc and trying to portrary the existence of individual shareholders as a justification for his sense of entitlement is mental when he was specifically on the board as a Well Society representative. Aye, I'm posting much the same over on P&B. Trying to re-write his role, clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirParkCornerExile Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 2 minutes ago, Mootherwell86 said: A complete embarrassment of a statement. Should not have been published by the club. I'm not so sure, the club may have thought "he's making a right tit of himself" knock yourself out. Nowhere in that statement do I think the club look bad he just looks like a spoilt entitled arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 27 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said: I'm not so sure, the club may have thought "he's making a right tit of himself" knock yourself out. Nowhere in that statement do I think the club look bad he just looks like a spoilt entitled arse. I think you're right. A smart move by the club to let us read it in all its entitled glory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mootherwell86 Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 33 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said: I'm not so sure, the club may have thought "he's making a right tit of himself" knock yourself out. Nowhere in that statement do I think the club look bad he just looks like a spoilt entitled arse. Based on club comms during the Barmack fiasco I wouldn’t be so sure. That being said, he’s totally embarrassed himself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 There's two crazy things about bleating about 'the interests of the 29%'. (I) Dickie was pushing a proposal that would dilute their shareholdings hurting their interests. (II) 'The 29%' gave him the same GTF as the Well Society members. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Blues Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 9 minutes ago, steelboy said: There's two crazy things about bleating about 'the interests of the 29%'. (I) Dickie was pushing a proposal that would dilute their shareholdings hurting their interests. (II) 'The 29%' gave him the same GTF as the Well Society members. Absolutely spot on. Do you think he resigned as a matter of principle over having to be interviewed, or to pre-empt the likely outcome of that interview? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 3 minutes ago, Electric Blues said: Absolutely spot on. Do you think he resigned as a matter of principle over having to be interviewed, or to pre-empt the likely outcome of that interview? There's no way he was going to be allowed to continue so it was probably wise to withdraw with a bit of dignity. He's obviously fucked that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 1 hour ago, steelboy said: The '29%' thing is nonsense. There is no 29% shareholding bloc and trying to portrary the existence of individual shareholders as a justification for his sense of entitlement is mental when he was specifically on the board as a Well Society representative. The 29% is just arithmetic since WS have 71%, right? I’m not too savvy on this but my perception was that he was on the MFC board to represent the WS membership? There was an obvious issue with this during the investment debacle and I’m assuming that the WS sub committee are now addressing this so it doesn’t happen in the future. Seems reasonable but looks like he’s taken the huff and doesn’t want to be constrained by having to commit to voicing the WS opinions rather than his own. Am I understanding this correctly? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 3 minutes ago, texanwellfan said: The 29% is just arithmetic since WS have 71%, right? I’m not too savvy on this but my perception was that he was on the MFC board to represent the WS membership? There was an obvious issue with this during the investment debacle and I’m assuming that the WS sub committee are now addressing this so it doesn’t happen in the future. Seems reasonable but looks like he’s taken the huff and doesn’t want to be constrained by having to commit to voicing the WS opinions rather than his own. Am I understanding this correctly? Yup. His seat as a Director was to represent the WS on the Board. He resigned from the WS, saying that he didn't align with the viewpoint of the rest of the WS Board on the investment and remained on the Exec Board in a seat which was his because he was there to represent the WS board which... etc. etc. etc. Aye the 29% is basically the remaining individual shareholders; I think maybe 15-19% of that is in the hands of three or four individuals; one of whom I understand is Dickie and another is perhaps John Boyle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 3 minutes ago, texanwellfan said: The 29% is just arithmetic since WS have 71%, right? I’m not too savvy on this but my perception was that he was on the MFC board to represent the WS membership? There was an obvious issue with this during the investment debacle and I’m assuming that the WS sub committee are now addressing this so it doesn’t happen in the future. Seems reasonable but looks like he’s taken the huff and doesn’t want to be constrained by having to commit to voicing the WS opinions rather than his own. Am I understanding this correctly? Exactly my understanding as well. His Statement certainly brings out his arrogance and feeling of entitlement. As Steelboy highlighted, no mention of his part in and support of the Barmack proposal which would have diluted the holding of those he would have us believe he champions. A proposal which was clealy going to be rejected by a large majority. Regards that 29%, if you were to deduct his sizeable shareholding and that of those shareholders who are also Society members, I wonder would that 'unrepresented' 29% would reduce to. Also is it not the role of the elected Board as a whole to represent ALL shareholders? As happens elsewhere, whether football related or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 7 minutes ago, dennyc said: Exactly my understanding as well. His Statement certainly brings out his arrogance and feeling of entitlement. As Steelboy highlighted, no mention of his part in and support of the Barmack proposal which would have diluted the holding of those he would have us believe he champions. A proposal which was clealy going to be rejected by a large majority. Regards that 29%, if you were to deduct his sizeable shareholding and that of those shareholders who are also Society members, I wonder would that 'unrepresented' 29% would reduce to. Also is it not the role of the elected Board as a whole to represent ALL shareholders? As happens elsewhere, whether football related or not. Sounds excellent material for a politician. Get elected to represent a large group of people and then do whatever the fk HE wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 29 minutes ago, texanwellfan said: Sounds excellent material for a politician. Get elected to represent a large group of people and then do whatever the fk HE wants. Just what I thought. A bit like the Tories electing a new leader who later turns out to be a member of the Labour Party. A bit far fetched but you get the drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prideoflanarkshire Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 I think praise and thanks has to be given to life long Motherwell fan that has worked effortless for years at our club. Anyone that dedicates that much time should be well remembered. Yes mistakes have been made and things could have been handled better but over a long period of time this is going to happen. Anyone that looks at his time at the club as a complete negative needs their heads looked at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 Just like McMahon, a long time of service that was wasted by being a wee bitch at the end. Toys everywhere cos he didn't get what he wanted, he's now jumped before he was voted out. He's went down swinging at least. What a helmet. 2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said: Aye, I'm posting much the same over on P&B. Trying to re-write his role, clearly. I'm suspended from there, such a jovial time too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 "but you shag one sheep..." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 Just now, weeyin said: "but you shag one sheep..." Is that why Busta is suspended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 I don't think anyone is questioning his commitment to the Club or the record of the work he's done alongside McMahon which is overwhelmingly positive. He says as much in his statement; the Club is being left in a secure financial position, setting up the WS as majority owner etc. What he neglects to mention in his statement is that he was willing to throw a lot (if not all) of that work away over the summer to bring in an investment which (blatantly, imho) was a terrible deal for the Club and would completely undermine, or even remove majority fan ownership. £300k for immediate effective control and Chairmanship of the Executive Board to someone without any previous experience of running a football club? Surely he can see the irony in that, given what he's said about the Society's sub-committee in his statement? The Society has put in triple (I think probably more) that in its time and not gotten anything other than a nod of thanks in the accounts and at the AGM. He has tarnished his good work with what happened this summer and with this final statement. I'm sorry, but you can't play down just how serious his actions over the summer could have been for the Club. The WS as majority owner has every right to interview who it wishes to appoint to the Executive Board as its representatives. The fact that he resigned as chair of the WS board because the opinion of the majority didn't agree with his own and subsequently remained in his seat on the Exec Board which was to represent the WS as a majority owner until now, is an absolute nonsense. To then to have the gall to expect he retains this seat effectively "just because" of his previous record absolutely reeks of cronyism and is everything that's wrong with Scottish football as a whole from top to bottom. There's a dignity in accepting that you've lost with grace and good wishes. This isn't it. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prideoflanarkshire Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I don't think anyone is questioning his commitment to the Club or the record of the work he's done alongside McMahon which is overwhelmingly positive. He says as much in his statement; the Club is being left in a secure financial position, setting up the WS as majority owner etc. What he neglects to mention in his statement is that he was willing to throw a lot (if not all) of that work away over the summer to bring in an investment which (blatantly, imho) was a terrible deal for the Club and would completely undermine, or even remove majority fan ownership. £300k for immediate effective control and Chairmanship of the Executive Board to someone without any previous experience of running a football club? Surely he can see the irony in that, given what he's said about the Society's sub-committee in his statement? The Society has put in triple (I think probably more) that in its time and not gotten anything other than a nod of thanks in the accounts and at the AGM. He has tarnished his good work with what happened this summer and with this final statement. I'm sorry, but you can't play down just how serious his actions over the summer could have been for the Club. The WS as majority owner has every right to interview who it wishes to appoint to the Executive Board as its representatives. The fact that he resigned as chair of the WS board because the opinion of the majority didn't agree with his own and subsequently remained in his seat on the Exec Board which was to represent the WS as a majority owner until now, is an absolute nonsense. To then to have the gall to expect he retains this seat effectively "just because" of his previous record absolutely reeks of cronyism and is everything that's wrong with Scottish football as a whole from top to bottom. There's a dignity in accepting that you've lost with grace and good wishes. This isn't it. Acknowledge your comments, however, IMO the time is ticking on the WS for actions. I was against the summer investment, however, again IMO, people were to quick at the investment figure only and not other benifits that might have transpired. As I say I was against HIM as an investor but if someone comes along as with another investment offer then there is more to an offer than just the starting figure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 30 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said: Acknowledge your comments, however, IMO the time is ticking on the WS for actions. I was against the summer investment, however, again IMO, people were to quick at the investment figure only and not other benifits that might have transpired. As I say I was against HIM as an investor but if someone comes along as with another investment offer then there is more to an offer than just the starting figure. I think this is my issue with the whole thing; what other benefits, exactly? Backing an investment based on what "might" have transpired is incredibly risky, particularly when said investor doesn't have any track record in the area they're wanting to invest into aside from making a couple of sports documentaries. There was absolutely no substance to any of what Barmack offered, other than "this is the kind of what we'll do with AI and other shit". There wasn't a definitive business plan in any shape or form, there were incorrect figures used etc. It wasn't just the value; it was the whole thing. The £300k number I quoted was just the tip of the iceberg for me, you can see that from my previous posts on the matter. It's just the first one I go to for demonstration of how shit the whole thing was. I agree that the Society needs to start showing progress on things; I mentioned over on P&B that I'm concerned they've given this month as a date for announcing the first strategic partner, for example. I'd caveat that with that we do need to remember that Society is effectively starting from the ground up; there are significant governance issues within the Club which need to be sorted; not least how board members are appointed and also how to put in place checks and balances to avoid us getting into the situation we found ourselves in this year. Effectively five people were in control of whether or not an investment should be recommended to the club shareholders. Also, my understanding is that the recommendation/vote for the investment at Executive Board level took place prior to the wider members of the Society's board being consulted and asked to provide their own position on the matter to properly inform its representatives. That also needs sorted, or was just a massive overstep of their roles by the two WS reps to vote in favour without consulting their peers. As a random thought, was Douglas interviewed when he was appointed, or did he just get a seat at the table because he was on the WS Board? Did any of those who became Board members at that point go through a formal interview process, providing examples of where they've had direct input and membership on an Executive Board of a football club? I doubt it. I don't think anyone is against investment on the right terms, with the right people at the fore of it providing X,Y,Z which benefits the Club, Society and the local community. Time will tell if/when that happens, but I fear if the Society doesn't start to provide more solid updates on it, people will start to get restless. I'm willing to give them time but the quote of October for the first investor is just a rod for their own backs, as it'll give folk wanting to see them fail (not suggesting you are one of those) ammunition to get started. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 39 minutes ago, ropy said: Is that why Busta is suspended? I shouldn't have uploaded the video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 23 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said: Acknowledge your comments, however, IMO the time is ticking on the WS for actions. This is bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prideoflanarkshire Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 10 minutes ago, Busta Nut said: This is bollocks. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 58 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said: Acknowledge your comments, however, IMO the time is ticking on the WS for actions. I was against the summer investment, however, again IMO, people were to quick at the investment figure only and not other benifits that might have transpired. As I say I was against HIM as an investor but if someone comes along as with another investment offer then there is more to an offer than just the starting figure. I do not believe time is ticking for actions on investment options. Investors or I now see being referred as "Strategic Partners " is not so important as the Club management structure being resolved. In my opinion it is also more important for the investment to be correct even if it take weeks or months. We are i a reasonably sound financial situation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 Just now, Villageman said: I do not believe time is ticking for actions on investment options. Investors or I now see being referred as "Strategic Partners " is not so important as the Club management structure being resolved. In my opinion it is also more important for the investment to be correct even if it take weeks or months. We are i a reasonably sound financial situation. Exactly. Even the pro-Sheep team reluctantly admitted we were in decent financial shape - and that was before the Bair transfer and our recent cup run. We have time now to make sure the right structure and investment ideas are fully developed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted October 1 Report Share Posted October 1 41 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said: Why? Who ever is in charge has to keep us alive. Financially etc. They don't need to act quickly at the moment at all. 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.