New Investment Options

[Dee]

1 hour ago, wellgirl said:

Someone's just posted the results of the vote on pie and bov. The vote went in favour of fans considering voting in support of the society losing it's majority share. Email been sent to members. 

993* Well Society members (a 36% turnout) responded to the poll:
 
351 votes were cast for the option: I would not consider voting in support of any proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.
 
642 votes were cast for the option: I would consider voting in support of any investment proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.

 

 

Interesting results, in all honesty I was expecting a lot more to be in favour of the "I would" option. 36% of the membership that voted saying No before they have sight of the options on the table is very telling. 

For me the most disappointing aspect is the extremely low turnout on what I'd stress is an important issue. 

[wellfan]

13 minutes ago, Dee said:

993* Well Society members (a 36% turnout) responded to the poll:
 
351 votes were cast for the option: I would not consider voting in support of any proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.
 
642 votes were cast for the option: I would consider voting in support of any investment proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.

Interesting results, in all honesty I was expecting a lot more to be in favour of the "I would" option. 36% of the membership saying No before they have sight of the options on the table is very telling. 

For me the most disappointing aspect is the extremely low turnout on what I'd stress is an important issue. 

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option.

Crude assessment:

I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. 

If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. 

There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result. 

[santheman]

I'm maybe wrong here and someone please correct me if I am but do you have to have made a minimum payment of £300 to the WS before you get a vote.

The reason I ask is that a mate of mine who pays £5 a month and has paid that for 2 years so has only paid in £120 gets all the weekly emails but didn't get a vote.

If that's the case it might mean a number of members might be in the same position and could be another factor in the relatively low voting figures.

[wellgirl]

6 minutes ago, santheman said:

I'm maybe wrong here and someone please correct me if I am but do you have to have made a minimum payment of £300 to the WS before you get a vote.

The reason I ask is that a mate of mine who pays £5 a month and has paid that for 2 years so has only paid in £120 gets all the weekly emails but didn't get a vote.

If that's the case it might mean a number of members might be in the same position and could be another factor in the relatively low voting figures.

I got a vote and I've never paid a lump sum. 

[steelman1991]

4 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I got a vote and I've never paid a lump sum. 

I don't think he meant a "lump sum", but the sum of the contributions hadn't exceeded that level as a threshold for voting rights.

I don't know for certain, but I doubt there is a "limit". Once you've paid, your a member and entitled to a vote.

[wellgirl]

Just now, steelman1991 said:

I don't think he meant a "lump sum", but the sum of the contributions ahdnt' exceeded that level.

I don't know for certain, but I doubt there is a "limit". Once you've paid, your a member and entitled to a vote.

Sorry. Misread. 

[weeyin]

I wasn't that surprised in the turnout. When the Society was launched, I recall a lot of members saying they were joining to support the club, but had no real desire to participate in the running (which is fair enough).

I was a little surprised by the nearly 2 to 1 vote in favour of giving up ownership. Unless we find some generous benefactor who isn't expecting much of a return of investment, it feels like the road to a new Morrison's and an Excelsior Stadium ground share.

Boyle just about killed us off, and he was a fan.

 

[grizzlyg]

I pay £10 a month and got a vote

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, Dee said:

993* Well Society members (a 36% turnout) responded to the poll:
 
351 votes were cast for the option: I would not consider voting in support of any proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.
 
642 votes were cast for the option: I would consider voting in support of any investment proposal which would see the Well Society losing its majority shareholding.

 

 

Interesting results, in all honesty I was expecting a lot more to be in favour of the "I would" option. 36% of the membership saying No before they have sight of the options on the table is very telling. 

For me the most disappointing aspect is the extremely low turnout on what I'd stress is an important issue. 

The most telling stat of all is a 36% reply rate so 74% of society members couldn't be arsed to vote. That tells you all you need to know. Aject apathy from the very people invested in the club and we seriously hope to build a club that can expand and progress with that kind of interest.

 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option.

Crude assessment:

I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. 

If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. 

There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result. 

The turnout is an absolute disgrace. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option.

Crude assessment:

I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. 

If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. 

There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result. 

There's no point trying to spin it with conjecture and assumption. It's a disgraceful response , every real Motherwell fan alive would or should have known that vote was taking place and if they didn't get an invite to vote they should have contacted the Well Society. That's what I did and it took two mins with a response within an hour.

[FirParkCornerExile]

28 minutes ago, weeyin said:

I wasn't that surprised in the turnout. When the Society was launched, I recall a lot of members saying they were joining to support the club, but had no real desire to participate in the running (which is fair enough).

I was a little surprised by the nearly 2 to 1 vote in favour of giving up ownership. Unless we find some generous benefactor who isn't expecting much of a return of investment, it feels like the road to a new Morrison's and an Excelsior Stadium ground share.

Boyle just about killed us off, and he was a fan.

 

Aye but he gave control to a Muppet 

[steelboy]

I felt it was a poorly worded question. The 'no investment' option was phrased as being permanently binding and the 'investment' option was completely vague. 

Phase 1 of McMahon and Weir's PR operation(still need to find out who paid for it) to end fan ownership has been successful but they will need to be more honest and open going forward. There seems to have been a big effort to protect the identity of the American investor while the Australian one has been more public. I'm guessing phase 2 will be more scare stories about auditors and introducing the Americans. At the moment it's not even clear if they are talking about an individual buying us or a TV production company. 

The main outcome of this vote is that we won't have a CEO in place anytime soon so expect our squad building to become even more of a farce. 

[wellfan]

18 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

There's no point trying to spin it with conjecture and assumption. It's a disgraceful response , every real Motherwell fan alive would or should have known that vote was taking place and if they didn't get an invite to vote they should have contacted the Well Society. That's what I did and it took two mins with a response within an hour.

I agree that the turnout is poor. I offered some context regarding the reality of the membership demographic to demonstrate one potential reason for the low turnout, of which there will be many.

[StAndrew7]

People do realise that this is just a vote to consider proposals which give up fan ownership, right? Like, there will be another vote for all of the club's shareholders, including the society and private shareholders for or against any proposed takeover? Granted, the WS holds the majority by a long distance and it will vote as a block, but still.

This isn't a done deal, at all. This might, in a way, galvanize those that didn't vote to sit up and take notice. I hope it does.

And before any chirps up, I will always vote against any proposal that gives up fan ownership (for the record, I'm a private shareholder, not a WS member. Yet.)

The turnout is appalling, frankly. That speaks to a few things, I guess. The question was ambiguous, people who didn't get the e-mail not requesting one, apathy in general, the quick nature of the turnaround etc. etc.

You'd have to think that if we do get to the stage of there being a proposed investment, that there would need to be a certain level of turnout for the Well Society Board to be able to say that it truly represents the feelings of its members?

[dennyc]

35 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The turnout is an absolute disgrace. 

 I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details.

The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully every Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, dennyc said:

 I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details.

The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully ever Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

Whoever ran/set up the poll in whatever package (I assume SurveyMonkey or the like) should have all that data available; delivery success, open rates, link clicks, all of it should be there.

[wellfan]

7 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

People do realise that this is just a vote to consider proposals which give up fan ownership, right?

Some probably don't, but this indicative vote may well awaken others and increase the turnout in the event of any binding vote. 

[StAndrew7]

Just now, wellfan said:

Some probably don't, but this indicative vote may well awaken others and increase the turnout in the event of any binding vote. 

Aye, that's what I was hoping for/mentioned later in my post. I really hope it does. Like, how can the WS Board vote its 72% block of shares with less than 50% of the membership voting? That's not a realistic majority for something as crucial as the sale of the club.

[wellgirl]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, that's what I was hoping for/mentioned later in my post. I really hope it does. Like, how can the WS Board vote its 72% block of shares with less than 50% of the membership voting? That's not a realistic majority for something as crucial as the sale of the club.

People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, that's what I was hoping for/mentioned later in my post. I really hope it does. Like, how can the WS Board vote its 72% block of shares with less than 50% of the membership voting? That's not a realistic majority for something as crucial as the sale of the club.

For the simple reason , no one side can claim no voters, if people don't vote their opinion is not considered. It's that simple. A majority is a majority that is democracy , arbitrary thresholds are things politicians like to use when they don't like the answer they are likely to get. 

[wellgirl]

10 minutes ago, dennyc said:

 I agree. But reading above that someone who pays monthly did not get a vote is hugely concerning. And a fairly recent sign up at that, which indicates that poor record keeping is not just a historical failing. How many have been similarly excluded this time round? We will likely never know. Hard to gauge how much the low turnout is attributable to apathy and how much is due to lack on contact details.

The poor/inaccurate record keeping is really not acceptable. It has been known about for years. I suppose at least now discussions re possible Investment can continue and hopefully every Member will be contacted when it comes down to a crucial vote. I guess it is now confirmed that 993 contact details are correct so that is a starting point. I wonder how many vote invites were actually issued? Can anyone clarify?

We don't know - but surely the Society can clarify. 

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid. 

You are correct that is democracy and how democracy works, arbitrary thresholds are for corrupt politicians.

[Casagolda]

10 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

People had the option to vote and some clearly didn't take it. I personally don't think that should make the outcome of the vote less valid. 

Do you think the Well Society did a good job of letting people know there was a vote and what it was about?

Is an email really the best they can do to engage members? They have an opportunity at every home game to engage with people face to face. Turnout is low because there was no effort put into getting people to vote.

[dennyc]

2 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Whoever ran/set up the poll in whatever package (I assume SurveyMonkey or the like) should have all that data available; delivery success, open rates, link clicks, all of it should be there.

Not savvy enough to know what all that means but if the info is available it might help us to understand some of the reasons for such poor numbers.

2 hours ago, Dee said:

 

Interesting results, in all honesty I was expecting a lot more to be in favour of the "I would" option. 36% of the membership that voted saying No before they have sight of the options on the table is very telling. 

 

As we see on here regularly though, stats can be interpreted in many ways. I could argue that two out of  three people who responded saying 'I would' without having sight of the options on the table is just as telling.