New Investment Options

[steelboy]

3 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

If we do indeed have 5 Directors on the Executive Board, who are the other two? It's a simple question and in no way breaching confidentialities. I'm aware that Andrew Wilson resigned a wee while ago. 

As far as I can tell the club legally has three directors. 

So there are two people on the Executive Board who aren't directors.

[Kmcalpin]

7 minutes ago, steelboy said:

As far as I can tell the club legally has three directors. 

So there are two people on the Executive Board who aren't directors.

Just checked the annual accounts for year ended May 2023. There were four, but as we know, Andrew Wilson resigned. Maybe Graham Keyes, the company secretary is one?

Graham McGarry, writing in the Herald, says that the current situation with the Society and the Executive Board is akin to the tail wagging the dog. 

[texanwellfan]

One thing that I don’t fully understand is that the well society is the major share holder but votes as a unit (from what I’ve read but could be wrong). So does it get viewed as ‘one vote’ on the board or does it get viewed as the vote of X amount of share holders?  If it gets treated as the vote of X amount of share holders by the board (voting as a unit) then I don’t think that is right. If the WS vote is split 60/40 or 30/70 or whatever it should be presented that way at the board to reflect the will of the share holders rather than taking the vote of a group of shareholders and basically flipping their vote, whichever way. 
    I can see simple majority votes when the WS wants to decide on an action that is a decision to be made by the WS, like should we give money to the club to help cover cost of pitch upgrade but when it’s a vote to be made regarding an action to be taken by the club the each share holder should have their vote counted as they cast it and not nullified by being in a group such as the WS. 
   Another point is that not all members contribute the same so does higher contributions mean more votes or shared? That applies to voting to decide as a unit and also if they were to present any vote as a ratio of for and against. 

[steelboy]

Every Society member owns 1 voting share in the Society. 

Having effectively proportional representation makes no sense. It opens up the possibility that the Well Society members could vote 70% against the takeover but the overall shareholders vote goes in favour of it. 

In that scenario the Society assets are hugely reduced in value against the wishes of the membership. 

If you wanted a direct vote the shares were on sale dirt cheap not long ago. 

[wellfan]

47 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

If we do indeed have 5 Directors on the Executive Board, who are the other two? It's a simple question and in no way breaching confidentialities. I'm aware that Andrew Wilson resigned a wee while ago. 

This is all I can find:

https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/club/corporate-information/the-board/

[steelboy]

Motherwell supporting Herald sports writer Graham McGarry has a column up about the potential investment. Bolded bits are most relevant imo

https://www.heraldscotland.com/newsletters/bulletin/2605/?nid=2605&ref=eb

Quote

 

Fundamentally, the news this week that the club have entered into a non-binding Heads of Terms with a US-based family hasn’t materially changed my viewpoint on potential investment, or really changed the situation as yet.

I, like many others I would guess, are not entirely against the idea of outside investment, but it all depends on what the club would be giving away in order to secure it. My red line would be the ceding of the ‘Well Society’s majority shareholding, but I also have misgivings about giving away any sort of shareholding in the club if that wasn’t in exchange for a commensurate level of investment.

As yet, we do not officially know the figures involved, in terms of either the proposed level of investment, or the identity of the investors.

So, until both of those points are clarified, there is very little to go on in terms of judging whether this would be a good thing for the club or not.

Some notes of caution though. There is no doubt that outgoing chairman Jim McMahon is a Motherwell man, and will – I am sure – be looking to leave a legacy at the club when he steps down in the summer.

However, I hope that his eagerness to show that the investment video that was his brainchild, and that he personally financed, has been a success doesn’t blind his judgment, and that he doesn’t end up driving this through to its conclusion even if it isn’t in the best long-term interests of the club.

There is also some confusion here when it comes to his mandate for doing so. The executive board of course has a duty to seek out investment if they feel that is what the club requires, but the fact that the ‘Well Society board haven’t been directly involved in this process suggests something of the tail wagging the dog.

The ‘Well Society, let’s not forget, are the owners of the club, and their statement on Thursday evening distancing themselves from this process suggests a great deal of scepticism from their side around the potential deal.

This is a democracy, of course, and just as Society members voted to retain an openness to investment, so too will they eventually be asked to ratify whatever this deal may be. This is where crystallising exactly what any investment will mean to the club and its future will be vital.

I suspect that a great many of the members who didn’t vote on that first point will engage more when there is something concrete to consider, and something that could potentially affect the future of the club, for better or worse.

There may be many who will see the promise of foreign investment and think that more money cannot possibly be a bad thing, but there is of course a litany of cautionary tales throughout the recent history of the Scottish game to ensure that caution is advised.

Investment could be a good thing, and the ‘Well Society board themselves have said they are encouraged by the noises coming from the potential investors that they would like to work with the Society rather than sideline it.

So, let’s move forward with an open mind, but with a healthy dollop of scepticism too. The devil will be in the detail.

 

 

[texanwellfan]

40 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Every Society member owns 1 voting share in the Society. 

Having effectively proportional representation makes no sense. It opens up the possibility that the Well Society members could vote 70% against the takeover but the overall shareholders vote goes in favour of it. 

In that scenario the Society assets are hugely reduced in value against the wishes of the membership. 

If you wanted a direct vote the shares were on sale dirt cheap not long ago. 

But we are talking about the club so shouldn’t we be going with the majority of the shareholders?? 

[steelboy]

18 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

But we are talking about the club so shouldn’t we be going with the majority of the shareholders?? 

When we have a Society vote we are talking about the Society.

Look at it this way. If you take a guesstimate 8m valuation of the club then the Well Society currently has assets of £5.7 million just in terms of shares in the club, plus the loans to the club plus the cash in the bank. So somewhere in the region of assets of £7m.

If there is a share issue which hands the Americans a controlling interest (51%) the value of the Well Society shareholding - keeping the same valuation - drops to £1.6m.

So you are talking about the Well Society giving up assets worth £4 million. Obviously it should require a majority of Well Society members in favour to make that decision.

[Villageman]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

If we do indeed have 5 Directors on the Executive Board, who are the other two? It's a simple question and in no way breaching confidentialities. I'm aware that Andrew Wilson resigned a wee while ago. 

MFC registered OFFICERS @ Companies House are Keys as Secretary, Dickie, Feely and McMahon. 4 only.

[Ballso]

2 hours ago, steelboy said:

As far as I can tell the club legally has three directors. 

So there are two people on the Executive Board who aren't directors.

The five on the executive board were the current three (McMahon, Dickie and Feeley). Other two were CEO (burrows then Weir) and Andrew Wilson, who have now stepped away. 

i’m pretty sure the 5 Jay references was at the time of his posting.

[Kmcalpin]

14 minutes ago, Ballso said:

The five on the executive board were the current three (McMahon, Dickie and Feeley). Other two were CEO (burrows then Weir) and Andrew Wilson, who have now stepped away. 

i’m pretty sure the 5 Jay references was at the time of his posting.

I think that will be right, now that you explain it.

Back to the original point made by several of us. Given that the Society "reps" on the Executive Board outnumber other Directors ie Jim McMahon, I would hope that the Society is taking an active part in the negotiations with external partners  irrespective of how it is is dressed up. If not, it would appear that Jim McMahon is ploughing a lone furrow. Of course, the Society should be working up its own proposal in parallel. I hope in Mr MCGarry's words, that the tail isn't wagging our dog. 

[dennyc]

15 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

I think that will be right, now that you explain it.

Back to the original point made by several of us. Given that the Society "reps" on the Executive Board outnumber other Directors ie Jim McMahon, I would hope that the Society is taking an active part in the negotiations with external partners  irrespective of how it is is dressed up. If not, it would appear that Jim McMahon is ploughing a lone furrow. Of course, the Society should be working up its own proposal in parallel. I hope in Mr MCGarry's words, that the tail isn't wagging our dog. 

I think the tail has been wagging the dog ever since Hutchison insisted the established model be altered. Only the recent additions to the Society Board gave me hope that order might be restored. And I believe Jay and his colleagues are working to that end. But, sadly,  nothing I have read recently suggests to me that anything meaningful has changed.

[Ballso]

To put this into context, Nationwide recently agreed a deal to buy Virgin Money. 

I'm pretty sure it will have been their executive board, or a firm contracted by them who will have led negotiations before taking a deal back to the wider board for approval. All that happens before VM shareholders will have known anything about it. 

This suggests that the way our situation is being handled is not unusual

[steelboy]

56 minutes ago, Ballso said:

The five on the executive board were the current three (McMahon, Dickie and Feeley). Other two were CEO (burrows then Weir) and Andrew Wilson, who have now stepped away. 

i’m pretty sure the 5 Jay references was at the time of his posting.

He posted it four weeks ago. 

[steelboy]

21 minutes ago, Ballso said:

To put this into context, Nationwide recently agreed a deal to buy Virgin Money. 

I'm pretty sure it will have been their executive board, or a firm contracted by them who will have led negotiations before taking a deal back to the wider board for approval. All that happens before VM shareholders will have known anything about it. 

This suggests that the way our situation is being handled is not unusual

Do Virgin Money have a shareholder who own 71% of the shares?

 

[steelboy]

Simple question...

Who is currently on the Executive Board?

[Ballso]

59 minutes ago, steelboy said:

He posted it four weeks ago. 

Four weeks ago Derek Weir was still CEO as I’m sure you know. Andrew had left a week prior so Jay may have made a simple mistake. 

[0Neils40yarder]

45 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Simple question...

Who is currently on the Executive Board?

This is it for me...for all the debate, rumour and all the other stuff, the fact that we are unsure how many directors the club has and what power they actually weild is the most incredible bit for me

[Tamwell]

Reading through this thread, I totally understand the concerns about what’s came out today.

for a bit of background, I used to post on here a lot in the wtfc days, and I’m more of an admirer from afar these days. I’m a season ticket holder in the East stand and I’ve supported Motherwell for many years: first game in 1989 but I’m shite at maths, so that many years.

not that it matters. All fans should have an opinion on this, whether your favourite player was Cooper, McFadden, Higdon or Moult, even Bair, we all have a say.

Thats the beauty of a fan owned club, ok, we don’t have the full details just now, but we will when the time comes.

Any Motherwell fans who are not members of the  Well Society, make sure to sign up now, this is the only way your voice will be heard. The future of our club is at stake here.

I’m quite concerned by how many fans think the fan owned model isn’t working. Please do your due diligence, we’re in a decent position right now.

[David]

1 hour ago, Tamwell said:

I’m quite concerned by how many fans think the fan owned model isn’t working. Please do your due diligence, we’re in a decent position right now.

For many fans, the sign that it isn't working is that we got outbid by Kilmarnock for Van Veen in January.

[Tamwell]

18 minutes ago, David said:

For many fans, the sign that it isn't working is that we got outbid by Kilmarnock for Van Veen in January.

Outbid, or a good business decision?

[stv]

6 hours ago, David said:

For many fans, the sign that it isn't working is that we got outbid by Kilmarnock for Van Veen in January.

Thank fuk we did.

[Yodo]

So Erik Barmack of Netflix is the investor whoever he is 

[Toxteth O'Grady]

1 minute ago, Yodo said:

So Erik Barmack of Netflix is the investor whoever he is 

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/scottish-edition/sport/football/351749/exclusive-former-netflix-vice-president-is-behind-plan-to-invest-in-motherwell

[steelboy]

I can't read the article because of the paywall but i'm sure Stephen McGowan is the journalist who Les Hutchinson seemed to talk to a lot back when he was doing his takeover.