New Investment Options

[steelboy]

5 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Since WS have 71% of shares it doesn’t really matter that the other shareholders will be voting, right? 

Correct. And the proposal is to reduce their holdings by 80% so for them to get break even value Barmack's plans would have to increase the value of the club by 500% (to £20m not including the stadium going by wee Jim's funny sums). 

But we have no idea if any *prominent shareholders* involved in the discussions might have done a side deal with Barmack. 

[David]

6 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

Signing off on quotes or articles written by others is one thing, telling someone else to go online and get involved in conversations with fans is another thing entirely. Why take the chance an employee inadvertantly says something to piss off a group of extremely easily pissed off people when you're trying to butter them up? 

True. It depends on how well his team know him. 

There's also the fact that he may be saying a lot, but he's not actually saying anything of real substance. He's avoiding certain questions, some of which have been repeatedly asked, and isn't really getting "into the weeds," as I've seen at least one person over there say.

I still think it's part of a bigger PR plan to make him more relatable to the fanbase. And regardless of it being him or a team member, it's working to an extent. 

[wellfan]

The deal is shite. Even if the tweaks Barmack proposes to make (according to his comments on P&B) relate to him dropping his percentage from 49% to 46% to leave the Well Society with 49%, it's still shite. The Society has 71% and is the majority owner, so it's high time the Executive Board realised this and that any prospective investor took this seriously.

Barmack is chasing a bargain because McMahon has falsely presented the Club/Society as skint and its fans/members members as compliant. Let's get real here; any Executive Board with one brain cell between them wouldn't have let that offer, on those terms, come this far, let alone recommend accepting it. They've wasted Barmack's time and pissed off the Society and fanbase.

[bobbybingo]

3 minutes ago, David said:

True. It depends on how well his team know him. 

There's also the fact that he may be saying a lot, but he's not actually saying anything of real substance. He's avoiding certain questions, some of which have been repeatedly asked, and isn't really getting "into the weeds," as I've seen at least one person over there say.

I still think it's part of a bigger PR plan to make him more relatable to the fanbase. And regardless of it being him or a team member, it's working to an extent. 

Yeah, some are clearly falling over themselves to annoint him as the messiah. Seems their hearts and minds are set on accepting investment from whoever or wherever, and no amount of facts either.

[David]

1 minute ago, bobbybingo said:

Yeah, some are clearly falling over themselves to annoint him as the messiah. Seems their hearts and minds are set on accepting investment from whoever or wherever, and no amount of facts either.

Which, as I said in my post a few pages back, is the risk we run being fan-owned. We'll get guys like Barmack figuring they can come in and take the piss with a ridiculous offer simply because they know they don't need to get the deal past a savvy operator or fellow millionaire.

Again, can you imagine him going to Anne Budge with an offer like this? Obviously adjusted to represent a similar value at Hearts level.

Or trying to convince a Roy MacGregor that it's a good deal? He'd get laughed out of the country.

[dennyc]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

At the risk of sounding like a bit of a prick, do fans really need to be able to under the technicalities of the following to know it's a bad deal?

The plan that has been suggested at the moment, from what I can see, basically consists of the following:

• Barmack "invests" £1.95 million over six years. For this, he will receive 49% ownership, with 8% ownership from the beginning
• The Well Society has to invest £1.35 million over six years. For this, we will lose 25% of our shares.
• Barmack also becomes Chairman with the deciding vote in any tie.

So, he invests £1.95 million to see an increase in shareholding to the tune of 49%, while we, the fans, invest an additional £1.35 million to lose 25% of our shareholding. 

I've never been involved in any business deal where that kind of thing is suggested. Ever. Why? Because it's ridiculous. In any normal business setting, it would be laughed out of the room, and the party suggesting it would be roundly ridiculed. 

Oh, and on top of the above, we also need to agree to write off 50% of our loan to the club to the tune of £434,000. That is money that fans, including pensioners and people who are not well off, have paid to the Society in good faith, by the way. 

Almost half a million pounds of our money, just written off. Gone. 

So, with all of that said, what do we get in return? 

A multi-page business plan that shows why we need him on board? An exciting vision of the future under his chairmanship?

No.

We get talk of "infrastructure and long-term strategic projects rather than short-term player acquisitions" and incredibly vague chit-chat about "increasing broadcasting revenue, seeking additional investors and utilising artificial intelligence."

Do you want to know what I think?

I think that the above would be considered derisory by any competent board in the world of business. 

But, Barmack has found a well-run entity that's involved in a league that is looking at an uptick in TV and sponsorship money coming over the next five or so years and has realised it's "fan-run."

Which, in the mind of an investor and businessman from Los Angeles, as the club board keep describing him, means that it's run by simple folks who won't understand all the technicalities and who, in his likely view, are simply too fucking stupid to understand exactly what all this means. 

He wants the club on the cheap, and not only that, he wants us to actually pay for much of it. If you add in the money The Society would be losing on top of the contributions we'd need to make, it would actually mean that our total financial contribution over the six years would be £1,784,000 for the privilege of losing 25% of our shares, while he contributes £166,000 more than us over the same period for an increase in 48% of shareholding.

You want an honest assessment? He thinks we're mugs. And sadly, going by some of the responses I've seen, he's correct to an extent. I always feared that while fan ownership is a good thing, it does leave us open to business predators who simply see an asset that is owned by a large group of people who, for the most part, aren't business-savvy. 

As he said today on P&B:

"By the way, I think the offer has a better chance than many of you do -- if you follow politics closely, as I do, you can see examples on Twitter and message boards of a block that clearly don't like a proposal or politician, and are certain that their points are unanimous, only to see the quieter side of a voting block feel differently.  As one touch-point, there was a poll on Twitter about our offer, and I believe it was 30 for / 70 against, and I think you have to consider a bit who's voting on a Twitter poll to realize that the fan-base might be more divided than this thread suggests. So, I'm not throwing in the towel."

You're damn right he's not throwing in the towel. This could be one of the more lucrative deals he makes in years. Not because the club generates large sums of money but because he's basically securing a top-flight football club for less than the price of a three-bed house in Wishaw.

I don't agree. The reason why he's pushing for this deal with us is because of the decision-makers and structure of the club. 

Could you imagine him going to someone like Roy MacGregor with an offer like this? Or even better, let's send him round to speak to Anne Budge and Hearts with a similar offer.

So no, he knows that if he went to another club that was owned and run by someone from the actual business and investment world, he'd get laughed out of the building.

Well said that man.

I do worry that many Society Members have not grasped the true impact on the Society and what in reality we are being asked to surrender. And I don't in any way mean to be disrespectful to anyone. I'm no expert either.

I truly believe that if this deal is bludgeoned through, requiring annual commitments, loan write off and ultimately the handing over of majority ownership then it will see the demise of the WS. At the very least membership and subscriptions will drastically reduce and where will that leave the football club in time of need?

What you have laid out should become required reading before any vote.

And I say that as someone who does believe the Club needs external support if we are to maintain our position. (That is a different discussion) But not at any cost and certainly not on these terms. Hopefully at the end of the day we end up with a new, forward thinking Exec Board who are genuinely committed  to finding someone to work in Partnership with the WS rather than regarding it as an inconvenience to be kept at arm's length.

[David]

3 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I truly believe that if this deal is bludgeoned through, requiring annual commitments, loan write off and ultimately the handing over of majority ownership then it will see the demise of the WS. At the very least membership and subscriptions will drastically reduce and where will that leave the football club in time of need?

Another question which remains unanswered as far as I can tell is, what happens if the Society can't meet those financial projections? There have to be consequences to that, surely? Has that been detailed anywhere?

[wellgirl]

33 minutes ago, David said:

True. It depends on how well his team know him. 

There's also the fact that he may be saying a lot, but he's not actually saying anything of real substance. He's avoiding certain questions, some of which have been repeatedly asked, and isn't really getting "into the weeds," as I've seen at least one person over there say.

I still think it's part of a bigger PR plan to make him more relatable to the fanbase. And regardless of it being him or a team member, it's working to an extent. 

I think surely we need to remember that a very tiny proportion of the fanbase post on pie and bov and on here compared to the number who will have a vote. 

I saw someone on Facebook on Saturday on Motherwell fc page saying they just wanted the deal done. This is someone who probably has had zero interaction with EB. There's around 3700 people going to be voting or thereabouts? How many post on here or on pie and bov. 200? 300? I know a lot more people lurk but I've personally no idea how people will make their minds up. I assume some people will say no on the advice of the society. 

[wellfan]

4 minutes ago, David said:

Another question which remains unanswered as far as I can tell is, what happens if the Society can't meet those financial projections? There have to be consequences to that, surely? Has that been detailed anywhere?

If fans (and Society members) vote this through and collectively boot themselves in the bollocks, my direct debit will be cancelled, and I imagine that of many others.

The deal will kill the Well Society, not only in the long-term but in the short term because its revenue will be reduced and it'll be unable to continue being a co-investor as Barmack proposes. 

This is a key question, as you note, but I doubt the Executive Board considered this because it's clear they want rid of the Society.  

[David]

6 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I think surely we need to remember that a very tiny proportion of the fanbase post on pie and bov and on here compared to the number who will have a vote. 

Absolutely. That's what Barmack is banking on. He's hoping that the majority do not look at the lack of a credible plan, and don't do the sums to see how much we'd be getting fleeced. As I said, there's a reason why he's interested in Motherwell.

Hint; it's not because of our community spirit, engaged fanbase or any other nonsense he might trot out. it's because he believes he can get a deal done relatively cheaply and incredibly lopsided due to the seeming lack of business acumen at the top of the club. Theres' no fellow millionaire that he needs to negotiate with.

[steelboy]

2 minutes ago, wellfan said:

 

The deal will kill the Well Society, not only in the long-term but in the short term because its revenue will be reduced and it'll be unable to continue being a co-investor as Barmack proposes. 

 

The Well Society constitution will have to change to give up fan ownership. As you say a yes vote for the deal kills the Well Society and chance of building a new one because why would you put anything in again if people are just going to vote to give all the money away?

This really is an IQ test for our fanbase.....

[David]

5 minutes ago, wellfan said:

If fans (and Society members) vote this through and collectively boot themselves in the bollocks, my direct debit will be cancelled, and I imagine that of many others.

What?!? You mean to tell me that you're not on board with the idea of the Well Society paying more than it does now for the privilege of giving up control of the club?!?

[dennyc]

Just now, David said:

Another question which remains unanswered as far as I can tell is, what happens if the Society can't meet those financial projections? There have to be consequences to that, surely? Has that been detailed anywhere?

I took it, as the monies were actually in place at the moment, that it was a tactic to reduce the Bank balance over time. Ultimately making the Society weaker and more likely to collapse. I doubt whether subscriptions would offset the payments. Also would make it almost impossible to effect any sort of repurchase in two years time.....or ever. Maybe I'm just too suspicious.

And does reducing/writing of the monies owed to the Society by MFC affect the Security the WS holds over FP. I would have thought Barmack would want that gone as well and will likely be part of the masterplan in due course.

All too risky for me, and ultimately threatens MFC itself.

You make a Hearts comparison. Can I throw in Hibs as well? I know a good few on here are dubious, but both appear to be doing ok without having to hand over a majority holding. Or empty the coffers. I get they have different structures, but given time I am sure we can secure better than is currently on offer. 

 

[wellfan]

4 minutes ago, David said:

What?!? You mean to tell me that you're not on board with the idea of the Well Society paying more than it does now for the privilege of giving up control of the club?!?

As Steelboy notes, this situation will test the IQ of the average fan, and that's what concerns me. 

[texanwellfan]

7 minutes ago, wellfan said:

As Steelboy notes, this situation will test the IQ of the average fan, and that's what concerns me. 

Well let’s hope the WS lay it out nice and simple for the members to review and vote on. Already been summarized in a good manner on several posts and when presented like that it’s really hard to come to the conclusion that it’s a good deal. Especially when you consider there doesn’t appear to be a concise clear plan, with measurable metrics, put forth by EB as to how the club is going to benefit or how he is going to benefit. Pretty much it’s, do this (which seems not good) and I’m in charge. 

[David]

2 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I took it, as the monies were actually in place at the moment, that it was a tactic to reduce the Bank balance over time. Ultimately making the Society weaker and more likely to collapse. I doubt whether subscriptions would offset the payments. Also would make it almost impossible to effect any sort of repurchase in two years time.....or ever. Maybe I'm just too suspicious.

It was that very repurchasing option that made me think the current funds in bank would be retained to put towards that if it became a possibility. You could be right though in how you've framed it.

Either way, I don't see the Society being able to fulfil the obligations stated in that deal. 

Another interesting factor is that it seems the financial obligations being put upon the current majority shareholder of our club has been done entirely independent of consultation with said majority shareholder, which is incredible in itself. It shows the complete lack of respect for the Society that the deal has been put together with seemingly no input from the Society itself. 

Unless, of course, the Society agreed to the figures mentioned on their behalf?

[David]

2 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Well let’s hope the WS lay it out nice and simple for the members to review and vote on. Already been summarized in a good manner on several posts and when presented like that it’s really hard to come to the conclusion that it’s a good deal. Especially when you consider there doesn’t appear to be a concise clear plan, with measurable metrics, put forth by EB as to how the club is going to benefit or how he is going to benefit. Pretty much it’s, do this (which seems not good) and I’m in charge. 

100%.

It also should be said by the Society that the issue isn't with a deal that could potentially involve fan ownership ending, but the issue is with this particular deal. 

If someone else out there is seeing this unfolding and thinking "Wait, I could do better than that" and they come to the table? It becomes a whole new discussion.

[steelboy]

1 minute ago, David said:

It was that very repurchasing option that made me think the current funds in bank would be retained to put towards that if it became a possibility. You could be right though in how you've framed it.

Either way, I don't see the Society being able to fulfil the obligations stated in that deal. 

 

They won't be able to meet the terms and they will be changed so the whole loan of 800k is written off rather than just half of it.

[David]

1 minute ago, steelboy said:

They won't be able to meet the terms and they will be changed so the whole loan of 800k is written off rather than just half of it.

I absolutely agree that this is at least part of the end game. I have also read somewhere that the loan the Society has with the club is secured against the stadium, at least in part?

If that's the case, having that factor removed could lead down a road that we don't really want to consider.

[texanwellfan]

9 minutes ago, David said:

100%.

It also should be said by the Society that the issue isn't with a deal that could potentially involve fan ownership ending, but the issue is with this particular deal. 

If someone else out there is seeing this unfolding and thinking "Wait, I could do better than that" and they come to the table? It becomes a whole new discussion.

Agree with bold print, good point to clarify. 

[wellfan]

11 minutes ago, David said:

100%.

It also should be said by the Society that the issue isn't with a deal that could potentially involve fan ownership ending, but the issue is with this particular deal. 

If someone else out there is seeing this unfolding and thinking "Wait, I could do better than that" and they come to the table? It becomes a whole new discussion.

I think that Society Board members will be watching the sensible and technical posts on here and P&B and will likely lift from those to clarify key points for members, if necessary. 

[bobbybingo]

'comprehensive update' from club coming early next week.

https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/06/13/update-following-mondays-statement/

[wellgirl]

Just now, bobbybingo said:

'comprehensive update' from club coming early next week.

https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/06/13/update-following-mondays-statement/

Good. 

[dennyc]

27 minutes ago, David said:

I absolutely agree that this is at least part of the end game. I have also read somewhere that the loan the Society has with the club is secured against the stadium, at least in part?

If that's the case, having that factor removed could lead down a road that we don't really want to consider.

The part about the Society charge over the Stadium raised alarm bells with me. 

By whatever means, if the outstanding Loan disappears does that mean the Charge falls automatically? Perhaps like someone repaying a Mortgage. The point being that the Society do not own FP, they hold a charge over it in view of the outstanding debt. That situation needs looked at by someone far more legally aware than most of us.

Getting that Charge agreed several years ago was driven by Society members and was not intended from day one. I know that for sure because I (and others) raised that point directly with Tom Feeley. In fairness, several months later it was in place as a much needed safeguard.

 

 

[Spiderpig]

23 minutes ago, dennyc said:

The part about the Society charge over the Stadium raised alarm bells with me. 

By whatever means, if the outstanding Loan disappears does that mean the Charge falls automatically? Perhaps like someone repaying a Mortgage. The point being that the Society do not own FP, they hold a charge over it in view of the outstanding debt. That situation needs looked at by someone far more legally aware than most of us.

Getting that Charge agreed several years ago was driven by Society members and was not intended from day one. I know that for sure because I (and others) raised that point directly with Tom Feeley. In fairness, several months later it was in place as a much needed safeguard.

 

 

The charge is a legally binding agreement which means the club board are unable to sell the ground until the loan is repayed in full, basically its a secured loan. The charge does not automatically fall the club board would need to apply to have it removed so the lawyers need to get involved.

It's when you  see details like that you begin to realise that the deal on offer is all about eliminating the WS and securing full control over all the club assets for Barmack, or am I being cynical?