New Investment Options

[David]

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

I made this point on P&B the other day and I am by no ways or means defending their decision when I say this, but by voting for the investment to go through, the two WS reps on the board were technically following the wishes of the Society membership.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. By my reckoning, and I could be mistaken, the Society representatives on the club board are there to convey the wishes of the Well Society board, which the wider membership elected to represent them.

Now, that doesn't mean that any investment offer can be decided by the Society board itself, but surely the board is able to vote among themselves to decide upon a recommendation? And that recommendation is then taken to the club board and conveyed?

If the hastily assembled online poll (and that's what it really was), which was cleverly worded and vague enough to have many people thinking, "well, I'll vote yes because maybe a Saudi Prince will arrive and want to buy us, and I want that to be considered," was binding insofar as the board itself having to approve any and all offers based on the result of it, then I'd say we've all been deceived to some extent.

For me, the board of the Society, who are privy to many details that the wider membership are not, should have the power to make a recommendation, and the majority recommendation of the Society board should be conveyed by the Society representatives on the club board.

[David]

16 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

EB said the other day that there had been dialogue with well society board members. He referred to Sean, Jason and Derek and said that he was aware that they weren't in favour of the offer but that it hadn't been communicated in as strong terms as in the well society statement. I personally think the folk who can answer the questions on the voting issue are the Well Society board. 

Wouldn't it be more insightful if the actual club board made their views known about the offer and why they voted to unanimously accept it? I'd be interested in knowing their reasoning. Thus far, we've had radio silence on the matter.

21 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Right now there's a lot of speculation as there's always going to be. I personally don't think the issue is that it's a poor offer that fans don't want. If members don't want it they can reject it. 

Oh, that's precisely the issue. I've encountered very few opinions suggesting that retaining fan ownership is the main concern here. It's not. That matter appears to have been set aside for the time being, with the seemingly absurd terms of the offer being placed at the forefront.

If this were a credible and fair offer that also saw the Society's percentage drop below 51%, there would be nowhere near as much vitriol. Certainly, there would be robust discussion on the merits of the offer weighed against retaining fan ownership, but I've seen virtually none of that. The focus is entirely on how the club board could have the audacity to even suggest approving such an offer.

24 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The issue is that the board have decided to look for external investment - and the Well Society are opposed to this - at least in its present form where we would see the society lose majority control.

I have had extensive discussions with Society board members over recent months, and this is most certainly not the case. Would they require significant persuasion to relinquish fan control? Absolutely. However, nothing is off the table if the right offer is made.

What we are witnessing here is a response to an utterly ludicrous offer and frustration directed towards a club board that has attempted to force it through.

26 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There's obviously a conflict between the board and the society - as a lot of people are aware.

Absolutely. The main issue is that the Society had two board members on the club board who did not actually believe in the very ethos of the Society itself, which is absurd. I have absolutely nothing against the two individuals who voted in favour of this offer at club level, and the other who voted in favour at Society board level, but the fact is, this is a Society board. If you do not believe in and wish to represent the Society, you have no place being there.

For me, the bigger issue now is not the ridiculous Barmack offer. That should never be approved in its current form; it is laughable.

The bigger issue is the vacancies on the Society board, and more importantly, the vacancies on the club board that should be filled by individuals who represent us. This needs to be addressed swiftly, because I have absolutely no faith in the current club board as it stands, which, oddly enough, still includes the two individuals who hold the Society seats, despite one of them having already resigned from their position at Society level.

[wunderwell]

One thing I'm not sure has been said but seems more apparent every day that Barmack may come back with an improved offer.

He must by now have a sense of rejection of the initial offer and a flavour of the discontent of the fans.

[David]

Just now, wunderwell said:

One thing I'm not sure has been said but seems more apparent every day that Barmack may come back with an improved offer.

He must by now have a sense of rejection of the initial offer and a flavour of the discontent of the fans.

I believe any improved offer would not significantly differ in terms of the finances on the table, as I don't think he is the type of buyer who has access to the substantial funds some supporters hoped for to make us competitive with the likes of Kilmarnock, Dundee, or St Johnstone.

His financial contribution essentially amounted to an additional £300,000 per year, did it not? That is not going to go very far, so unless he substantially increases the financial terms, I do not see how he could improve the offer.

The only viable option is the same offer, but with the Society's holdings not dropping below 51%, and I suspect he would not be agreeable to that.

[wellgirl]

5 minutes ago, wunderwell said:

One thing I'm not sure has been said but seems more apparent every day that Barmack may come back with an improved offer.

He must by now have a sense of rejection of the initial offer and a flavour of the discontent of the fans.

Who knows. Id like to think fans will keep it civil because some of the dialogue I've seen aimed at him on twitter in particular has been pretty poor. 

[wunderwell]

17 minutes ago, David said:

I believe any improved offer would not significantly differ in terms of the finances on the table, as I don't think he is the type of buyer who has access to the substantial funds some supporters hoped for to make us competitive with the likes of Kilmarnock, Dundee, or St Johnstone.

His financial contribution essentially amounted to an additional £300,000 per year, did it not? That is not going to go very far, so unless he substantially increases the financial terms, I do not see how he could improve the offer.

The only viable option is the same offer, but with the Society's holdings not dropping below 51%, and I suspect he would not be agreeable to that.

The last line was where I was going........

[Clackscat]

He has just posted on P&B that he is considering some changes.

He has been quite active on there and has had some interesting and civil exchanges

Been quite civilized compared to the cesspit  that is twitter/x

[wunderwell]

9 minutes ago, Clackscat said:

He has just posted on P&B that he is considering some changes.

He has been quite active on there and has had some interesting and civil exchanges

Been quite civilized compared to the cesspit  that is twitter/x

I like being right!

[Fergie79]

He does come across pretty decent and hopefully a solution can be found where the WS can carry forward their funding proposals alongside Erik investing and working on new revenue streams, projects and amending his original proposal to be one that is good enough to unite everyone instead of spilt opinion.... That would be the ideal outcome

[Yabba's Turd]

6 hours ago, Clackscat said:

He has just posted on P&B that he is considering some changes.

He has been quite active on there and has had some interesting and civil exchanges

Been quite civilized compared to the cesspit  that is twitter/x

If he's registered for here, he'll need to wait until I can be arsed to approve him. Maybe i'll look this morning

[StAndrew7]

8 hours ago, Clackscat said:

He has just posted on P&B that he is considering some changes.

He has been quite active on there and has had some interesting and civil exchanges

Been quite civilized compared to the cesspit  that is twitter/x

He's mentioned that he's less inclined to change the valuation (for obvious reasons I guess, it gives him a great deal) but that he's willing to listen to people's ideas etc. on the structure I guess? He said he's going to take the WS statement and other people's ideas on board.

I think it was @David and a few others who have said that he needs to think carefully about how split the fan base could become over this, i.e. he needs to avoid a pyrrhic 'victory'.

He is never going to please everyone but I think he's realised that if he starts off with the majority of the WS Board not aligned with him (has Feely resigned yet?), there's really no point to all of this; as he's wanting to do it collectively and collaboratively.

Fair fucks to him, I still find it all a bit mental that he's spent the week discussing and debating things on a public forum.

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said:

 

Fair fucks to him, I still find it all a bit mental that he's spent the week discussing and debating things on a public forum.

The current WS and club boards could learn a lot from him re keeping WS members and every other fan informed of what's going on at the club, instead of the radio silence we're used to.

[Kmcalpin]

12 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

That's the main problem here the WS are the majority shareholders they should be involved in every major decision the club takes. Yes the WS representatives on the club board need to vote but that should be in accordance with the members views, especially for a major decision such as this.

Up till now the club board have basically ignored the WS, taking the money but ignoring them for everything else. And it's all because the WS was set up with no professional people on board and run by volunteers who seem to have done what they were told to by the club board ie leave running the club to us and don't Interfere.

A few of us warned of this very situation months ago Allan, especially when the Society held a 2:1 majority on the Executive Board, and it stated that it wasn't actively involved in negotiations.  Why not? Its absurd to think that the majority shareholder wasn't actively involved. I've no idea of the reasons for that.

I'm encouraged that EB is minded to amend his proposal, although there's a fair way to go before it will be acceptable to me.  In these situations I always take the view what can we do to make it work, rather than walking away or outright refusal? EB has been open, on P & B, at least. I'd like to think the Executive Board and Society will be a little more open, although their position is somewhat different. For many, including me, the detailed accounting is above our heads and an idiots guide would be useful.

As for the Society Board, its treading a fine line. It has to show unity and a consistent approach, but should never become an echo chamber. Diverse views and frank discussions are vital.     

[wellgirl]

1 minute ago, Spiderpig said:

The current WS and club boards could learn a lot from him re keeping WS members and every other fan informed of what's going on at the club, instead of the radio silence we're used to.

I completely agree. He also only went on there because he was getting name called by some fans. The radio silence from other parties is embarrassing. 

[Kmcalpin]

My question to the Society has been answered this morning so the quick reply is much appreciated.

However, I was told that the Society as an entity can't speak on behalf of individual board members and any personal views they may have, outwith the position that was reached collectively. The statement released on Monday was constructed with input from the entire Society Board, regardless of whether they were supportive of the investment proposal or not.

So, in short, we still don't know why 3 members voted for acceptance of EB's proposal. Just to emphasise I wasn't looking for personal details or a detailed account of who said what; just a summary, of the minority view.   

[wellgirl]

2 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

A few of us warned of this very situation months ago Allan, especially when the Society held a 2:1 majority on the Executive Board. and it stated that it wasn't actively involved in negotiations.  Why not? Its absurd to think that the majority shareholder wasn't actively involved. I've no idea of the reasons for that.

I'm encouraged that EB is minded to amend his proposal, although there's a fair way to go before it will be acceptable.  In these situations I always take view what can we do to make it work, rather than walking away or outright refusal? EB has been open , on P & B. I'd like to think the Executive Board and Society will be a little more open, although their position is somewhat different. For many, including me. the detailed accounting is above our heads.

ASs for the Society Board, its treading a fine line. It has to show unity and a consistent approach, but should never become an echo chamber. Diverse views and frank discussions are vital.     

We pay money into the society - we should have been told why the board weren't actively involved in discussions. Whether that was for legal reasons or issues between the society and the MFC board.

Members are being asked to make a big decision.  There's been disconnect between the support and the board for some time now and all of this has just exposed it. 

This has just turned into a shit show and it should have been positive for the club and it's support. 

[wellgirl]

27 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

My question to the Society has been answered this morning so the quick reply is much appreciated.

However, I was told that the Society as an entity can't speak on behalf of individual board members and any personal views they may have, outwith the position that was reached collectively. The statement released on Monday was constructed with input from the entire Society Board, regardless of whether they were supportive of the investment proposal or not.

So, in short, we still don't know why 3 members voted for acceptance of EB's proposal. Just to emphasise I wasn't looking for personal details or a detailed account of who said what; just a summary, of the minority view.   

I don't think we will find out unless they choose to speak publicly about the reasons why. 

[steelboy]

2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

 

Fair fucks to him, I still find it all a bit mental that he's spent the week discussing and debating things on a public forum.

He's trying to buy £4m of assets for £2m, gain control of £1.8m of Well Society assets and take sole control over the clubs £6m+ a year turnover. 

He would probably do live Webcam shows on request to get the deal through. He's working for big money, not just chatting with some fans. Don't be naive. 

[StAndrew7]

50 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Don't be naive. 

Of all the things to fire at me after the last few days, when you've seen my contributions and comments on all of this, really?

[wellgirl]

12 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Of all the things to fire at me after the last few days, when you've seen my contributions and comments on all of this, really?

Oh come ON, you surely knew that was the cunning plan all along - EB doing live webcams to the sounds of up the well. Takeover was just a smokescreen. 

[steelboy]

24 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Of all the things to fire at me after the last few days, when you've seen my contributions and comments on all of this, really?

I'm sorry but to me it's like someone being impressed that Sunak, Starmer or Flynn came to their workplace during a General Election campaign. He's posting on a message board to try and earn votes so the deal goes through and his net worth significantly increases (and the net worth of the the Well Society decreases by the same amount). 

He's playing a smart game. His first offer was terrible so he's using Social Media as a market research tool to finessese a new offer while doing the equivalent of 'kissing babies' by buttering up the electorate. At the same time he is avoiding all the hard questions about his bid and his plan for the club. 

[Spiderpig]

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

My question to the Society has been answered this morning so the quick reply is much appreciated.

However, I was told that the Society as an entity can't speak on behalf of individual board members and any personal views they may have, outwith the position that was reached collectively. The statement released on Monday was constructed with input from the entire Society Board, regardless of whether they were supportive of the investment proposal or not.

So, in short, we still don't know why 3 members voted for acceptance of EB's proposal. Just to emphasise I wasn't looking for personal details or a detailed account of who said what; just a summary, of the minority view.   

The individual WS board members Dave should be voting according to the wishes of the members. Obviously not on every single trivial item, but for a major issue like this all 9 WS board members should be voting according to the wishes of the members and not their own personal views.

You have to question whether they were keen to get on the WS board for a genuine belief in fan ownership or for their own self aggrandisement, I think the 3 who resigned were the latter.

[David]

4 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

The current WS and club boards could learn a lot from him re keeping WS members and every other fan informed of what's going on at the club, instead of the radio silence we're used to.

To be fair to the boards of both entities, they're not really in the same position as he is. He's an individual who's trying to rescue a deal that has an incredible upside for him and his business.

The boards of both club and Society can't really come out on a public internet forum and start chatting away. It doesn't work like that with such entities.

[wellgirl]

2 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

The individual WS board members Dave should be voting according to the wishes of the members. Obviously not on every single trivial item, but for a major issue like this all 9 WS board members should be voting according to the wishes of the members and not their own personal views.

You have to question whether they were keen to get on the WS board for a genuine belief in fan ownership or for their own self aggrandisement, I think the 3 who resigned were the latter.

The thing is though when the vote is clearly split - surely you would think there would be a mechanism in place to deal with that. 6 members want the deal and 3 don't so they vote the way the majority want for example. You wonder why that wasn't put in place. What to do in the event of split views on Society board? 

[David]

6 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The thing is though when the vote is clearly split - surely you would think there would be a mechanism in place to deal with that. 6 members want the deal and 3 don't so they vote the way the majority want for example. You wonder why that wasn't put in place. What to do in the event of split views on Society board? 

Something worth remembering is that this fan ownership thing was relatively new when we implemented it at the club. So, there's still a lot to tighten up and rules to be revised I'd guess. 

This is the first real "situation" that we've faced since implementation, and I think if we deal with it correctly we can come out the other side better for it.