New Investment Options

[David]

1 minute ago, steelboy said:

Why do we need year on year investment? The aim should be to run the club at a small profit to build reserves.

This is absolutely key for me. Regardless of money from outside sources, we simply cannot escape the fact that in order to continue as a well-run club, we need to operate within our means. 

[Spiderpig]

5 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I personally have my doubts. 

So do i, I'm not a member but only a few months ago the WS were struggling to sort out current contact details for it's membership, so producing a feasible and appropriate investment plan to take the club forward even by engaging outside professionals and agencies may be beyond their capability. Time will tell.

[Well Well]

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not inspire confidence of any cohesion and unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase. 

[Spiderpig]

8 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Why do we need year on year investment? The aim should be to run the club at a small profit to build reserves.

It was yesr on year investment in the context of the investment plan currently being discussed ie 3 to 6 years etc.

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, Well Well said:

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not show any unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase?. 

They resigned because they had no choice. They voted in favour of the proposal from Barmack and that fundamentally went against their role as board members as laid out in the Society's articles of association.

Frankly, the fact they've chosen to resign before their plan is released, to me anyway, demonstrates they weren't in favour fan ownership moving forward at all and were in favour of the investment diluting it. So they should never have been there in the first place, or resigned due to a significant conflict of interest.

Dickie from my understanding remains on the Executive Board, firmly aligned with the Chairman.

[steelboy]

1 minute ago, Spiderpig said:

It was yesr on year investment in the context of the investment plan currently being discussed ie 3 to 6 years etc.

Aye but that money seems to be earmarked for Barmack's pet projects like AI and global marketing which are unlikely to work out. The money won't go to our core operations.

Barmack's production company's Twitter account only has 25 followers, he talks a good game but has absolutely nothing to back it up.

[Onthefringes]

5 minutes ago, Well Well said:

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not inspire confidence of any cohesion and unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase. 

It’s not rocket science. 2 were co-opted onto executive board and were toeing the party line and the other who’s grifted their whole tenure was an ally.

[David]

7 minutes ago, Well Well said:

I cannot understand why those who want the current Barmack proposal booted into the sun asap ( I am not a fan either btw of the current proposal) and then go on to push the WS plan as the way forward. It might be an absolute pile of fairy dust and wishful thinking.

What about those of us who aren't keen on the Barmack proposal, but who instead believe we should be expecting more from our board and CEO? 

7 minutes ago, Well Well said:

I don't know the Well Society board but a third have resigned and for me that does not bode well for the future. If their plan is so much better for the club why did a full third resign before it is even published. It does not inspire confidence of any cohesion and unity and probably reflects the alleged division amongst the wider fanbase. 

I'm not so sure about that. The resignations have come about because the individuals involved voted in favour of reducing the Society to less than 51%, which means essentially putting an end to fan ownership. If they believe that, then they shouldn't really be on the board of the Society.

[Spiderpig]

5 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Aye but that money seems to be earmarked for Barmack's pet projects like AI and global marketing which are unlikely to work out. The money won't go to our core operations.

Barmack's production company's Twitter account only has 25 followers, he talks a good game but has absolutely nothing to back it up.

I'm not disagreeing with you, sometimes it takes some unorthodox moves to make an investment work long term. But the low offer and the effective removal of the WS in the plan on offer makes it a Mon starter for me.

[David]

18 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Agree. The society maybe felt they had to come up with an alternative proposal so it will be interesting to see what it is. 

And what if they don't come up with a proposal that would see us bring in an extra few million pounds?

[Well Well]

Thanks for the responses. It helps me to understand the different viewpoints. It may not be rocket science but there is some misinformation and smoke being put out there by both sides.

[Well Well]

Erik Barmack just posted this on P&B;

Back for Day 2 -- I think I'm going to need more animated gif memes to survive here.  I just want to clarify a few points that may be at least somewhat helpful in this discussion:

(1) The design of our offer was always to give fans 50%+.  Because there were discussions with lots of parties, and the actual governance of the Club isn't the easiest to understand, we landed where we did -- but if the main concern was keeping TWS, specifically, at 50%+, I'm sure smart people (not me) could sit in a room and solve it.  Intention matters here.

(2) There is a moving target, too, on what we, collectively, think the state of the Club's finances are.  I want to repeat that I am not in the gloom-and-doom category of the state of finances, but on any given year, there COULD BE a gap, and those gaps are likely to require outside funding because of FFP requirements.  I personally don't believe that the choices are "TWS goes with the Barmack plan" OR "TWS funds nothing."  I kind of believe that TWS will have to fund some things in the coming years, regardless, and we need to look at the delta of that amount, which is admittedly difficult to do.The intention of our offer was so that planning could be done over several years and with greater predictability.

(3) The intention of the "call option," was so that we were held accountable.   That's the key forcing function.   We think we'd be good at working with TWS, Brian and others, but lots of people think they're good at things and end up sucking.  I don't think that the argument holds that the call option won't be exercisable, because it ignores the fact that player sales, which are extremely likely to occur, will be held in escrow.  Finally, there's snark about "fees" associated with the call option, and just for clarity, those are fees that would involve lawyers and accountants to open and close a business.  (Read: It would suck for us to have the option called.)

(4) On valuation, to be slightly more specific, there are a few thoughts:

    (a) We know that 6-7 offers were made on MFC, and none were deemed better -- that's one point.

    (b) We personally looked at clubs in the SPFL and top clubs in the Championship, and I can tell you that the valuations are all within a range that's not wildly off, though it's also true that football prices change constantly.

     (c) One just playful idea -- Newcastle United does more revenue in total than the entire SPFL, and it sold a few years back for 300m pounds.  If you track revenue within the SPFL, at least 82-85% of it is attributable to the OF, and at least 10% of the remaining chunk is the Edinburgh clubs and Aberdeen.  That gets you to 7 clubs splitting 7-10% of the revenue.  Yes, Newcastle has grown over the last two years, but even if that club is now worth 400m pounds, as a comp, you'd be looking at 7-10% of 40m pounds across seven clubs, and those clubs have different levels of debt/stadiums/etc.  That may not be convincing, but it was helpful to me in combination with a+b.

Still, valuation can be quite subjective.  And little changes (a player sale, a better stadium, a new media rights deal) can completely change things.  So, I'm not asking you to agree with me, per se.  I just want you understand that thought was put into this.

(5) There have been a number of posts about death-star-like machinations to somehow gut the club in year 6, or flip assets.  Here I ask for the intermingling of faith/logic -- there are approximately a gazillion easier ways to make money than through the SPFL, and if there was some plan to strip assets in year 6, it's going to be a terrible one.  The only way we (possibly) ever make money off this opportunity is if the Club grows brilliantly, and someone else wants to engage in a hybrid model of fan ownership.

(6) Finally, I wanted to put a little context behind our negotiations.  This will sound somewhat counter-narrative to this particular board, but the members of the MFC Board were all passionate about our offer because we emphasized that we wanted to balance private and fan-ownership interests.  They were very concerned, too, about long-term stability for MFC and worked selflessly on this deal (I know I'm not making fans here, but that's what I experienced.)  We put the best offer out that we could given the information we had, it was accepted by the Board, and presented to TWS Board several times.  Concerns were expressed, obviously, but nothing to the extent of the dissenting letter that went out yesterday, and that's not a knock on the WS Board -- I believe that they're acting in what they perceive to be the best interests of the Club.  Similarly, and just sharing for transparency, I get tons of emails telling us to hang in there, because the most vocal critics are on message boards/Twitter, and that a larger percentage than this board might think could want "change."  (I''m not sure if that's right, but it's something to consider -- but, on the other hand, I also don't want to be "right," get a deal done, and have Block E holding up signs that read: "Barmacks go home.")

Summarizing, we're not total buffoons, we hope, nor are we the most venal extreme of American capitalists.  We still think what we put forth would make the Club stronger.  If it doesn't, I don't believe MFC is somehow doomed -- it's just a different trajectory.  I still like and respect Derek, Sean, Jason and those who are adamantly against the present deal, and if they have feedback for me, I will always take it.  I don't know if this is helpful, but wanted to lay some of these pieces out for consideration.

E

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

It is and the pressure is now on the Society board to produce and publish an alternative investment plan. Its not unreasonable for members to expect this by 1 July. 

An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset.

The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need.  To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club.  And to safeguard the future of the Society.

I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to.

 

[Kmcalpin]

11 hours ago, steelboy said:

What's worth remembering about the 49% figure is that some of the clubs shares are effectively 'lost' so it's not possible for the entire 51% of non Barmack shareholders to come together to vote against him. 

The matter of the smaller private shareholders is one that has been largely overlooked in the past day or so. They/we make up about 28% of the total shareholding. From memory, there is one "large" shareholder, whose name hasn't cropped up on these boards, with several "medium" sized ones. As you say shareholdings did become more concentrated as people died off.  But, against that the more recent Society sale did increase the number of small shareholders.  Other things being equal, existing small shareholders would have the right to increase their holding, under the Executive Board's favoured plan. As someone else rightly posted on social media, some small shareholders could sell/give some of their their shares to the Society, although the club directors would have the right to block any such transaction (rarely if ever exercised) if it was deemed to be not in the best interests of the club (or something like that; I don't know the exact wording). 

Just another thought to toss into the bubbling soup pot.   

[steelboy]

There's still absolutely zero in there about what he intends to actually bring to the club.

Edit - Just looked over at P&B and there are actually people thanking him for posting like he's some sort of superior being. Fucking hell.

[steelboy]

2 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The well society said months ago they were looking to come up with an alternative proposal. I don't think anyone has transferred this responsibility onto them. They made a statement a few months ago saying they would come up with an alternative proposal. If they don't feel that's within their remit all they need to do surely is say this. 

They didn't say alternative proposal. They said a new business plan for the society.

[Spiderpig]

2 minutes ago, dennyc said:

An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset.

The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need.  To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club.  And to safeguard the future of the Society.

I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to.

 

The WS are the majority shareholders,  owners, controlling interest, etc so nothing major should happen at The club without them knowing about it and sanctioning it, ie additional investment proposals, so if the WS board in line with the memberships wishes don't fancy it then it should go no further. And the club board should be told go and try again 

However as the WS was never set up with any serious Intent in terms of getting professional people onboard. It's been left to the volunteers to deal with the club board who want out ASAP and clearly have no time for the WS.

The WS has been nothing more than a piggy bank to the club since it was set up with members contributing significant sums of cash  with no real benefits in return, it's fan ownership in name only.

So as the current club board are desperate to get out , now maybe the time for the WS to step up, get their act together restructure and get some professional people in place to run the club going forward for real and effective fan ownership. 

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

 

It's interesting that McMahon all of a sudden made investment his priority post the October Society elections, when a significant number of the old guard were voted out. 

And the revised Society Board determined that the they should return to operating in the manner that was originally set. Before, firstly, Les H and then Jim McM decided the Society was really just a cash source to be raided whenever and for whatever purpose the Club Board dictated. That's our subscriptions we are talking about. Aided by a faction within the Society Board. And the Barrack proposal is just an extension of that sidelining of the Society.

[joewarkfanclub]

5 hours ago, David said:

The thing is, we're not turning down £2 million investment. We'd be essentially turning down a £2 million offer for control of the club. 

Which Barmack will get back when he cancels half the Well Society loan plus the £1.35m he is demanding they provide over the same period.

The guy is effectively getting the club for nothing.

[Big Wispy Flossy]

well Societys initial statement in full

[David]

9 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

An alternative plan to outside investment is how the BBC reported it in February. Anyway. It will be good to see what their plan is. 

The BBC are simply after clicks. Nothing more. They don't even get the players on our team's names right sometimes.

The Well Society can create a plan that improves the workings of the Society itself, but even if it came up with the best plan to draw investment that the footballing world has ever seen, they're not ideally placed to enact that.

It all comes down to the actual board of the club, and the CEO. Those individuals are being paid (or should be getting paid) to do that job. Not the people who give up their free time to help run the Well Society.

As an aside, if I was on the board of the Well Society and we came up with the plan for investment and for taking the club forward, I'd be looking to be more involved in the implementation of that plan and the running of the club.

It's easy to forget sometimes, but the club board is answerable to the Society. Not the other way around.

[Kmcalpin]

20 minutes ago, dennyc said:

An investment plan for the Football Club? That is not the responsibility of the volunteers on the Well Society Board. That is the responsibility of the professionals who comprise the Football Club Board. The only reason attempts are being made to transfer that burden to the WS is because all the current Board have come up with is the Barmack proposal. And that is plainly all about Jim McMahon washing his hands of the Club and heading off into the sunset.

The role of the Society Board is to administer and grow the Well Society in order that the Society can provide finance to the Club in time of need.  To be repaid to the Society in order that Society funds grow over time. Also to support Community projects that are seen as beneficial to the area and the Club.  And to safeguard the future of the Society.

I really cannot understand why people cannot differentiate between the two distinct remits. Or choose not to.

I quite get the different remits of the Club and Society; so no argument from me whatever on that front. I'm quite clear about that. However, until a few minutes ago, I would have said that despite that theoretical separation of roles,  the Society was not following that in practice, as it was indeed working on an alternative investment proposal, rightly or wrongly.

However Steelboy has now placed extremely serious doubt in my mind by saying that my understanding simply wasn't accurate and that the Society has never been doing that. Its only ever been working on a strategic plan for the Society. Big Wispy Flossy has just confirmed that. In short there is no emerging alternative to the current external investment plan, except the status quo. 

My thoughts align with Wellgirl and I suspect also with a significant proportion of our fanbase which would also seem to be confused as to what exactly the Society Board is working up.  She rightly quotes the BBC "An alternative plan to outside investment is how the BBC reported it in February." So, there is some logical basis for our confusion. 

[David]

1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said:

However Steelboy has now placed extremely serious doubt in my mind by saying that my understanding simply wasn't accurate and that the Society has never been doing that. Its only ever been working on a strategic plan for the Society.

The Society's number one concern is making sure that they have the funds needed if things under fan ownership go pear-shaped as has been described in the worst-case scenario. 

Again, I've said it before, but the Society cannot actually create and implement a plan that would bring in outside investment. I'm sure there are certain legal hurdles that must be crossed by any entity that goes down the route of engaging with international investors and striking investment contracts and MOU's.

That kind of thing has to come from the club itself, and the board, led by the CEO.

What the Society can do is look at alternative ways to make the club more appealing to certain groups and individuals, and that is something I know for a fact they have been working on. But again, somewhere in all of this we need to be asking what the actual club itself has been doing?

[dennyc]

20 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The well society said months ago they were looking to come up with an alternative proposal. I don't think anyone has transferred this responsibility onto them. They made a statement a few months ago saying they would come up with an alternative proposal. If they don't feel that's within their remit all they need to do surely is say this. 

 

17 minutes ago, steelboy said:

They didn't say alternative proposal. They said a new business plan for the society.

Yikes! I find myself agreeing (again) with Steelboy.

I also think that because they want what is best for the Club and the Society they are trying to find solutions that are drawing them into areas beyond their remit. It is one thing managing the development and growth of the Society, but coming up with an investment plan for a football club is something else. Are we expecting too much of them?

As majority share holders and owners,  I wonder if they should just have sought Members views and, if the consensus was 'NO', advised the Board that the proposal had been rejected,  providing the reasoning behind that decision.  And then instructed the Club Board to seek an alternative.  But, through good intentions, the monkey has now landed on the Society's back. 

Wellgirl, hope your day got better and you got your work completed on time.

[David]

Yes, but there's a difference between "an alternative plan to outside investment" and them creating "an alternative plan to bring in outside investment" which is what I've seen a lot of people saying. The general view has been that if we don't want Barmack's deal, the Society need to find a way to match that deal elsewhere.

The Society is and always will be (I hope!) focused on ways we can operate as a fan-owned club. And in all honesty, there's a ton that could be done to improve how we operate.