steelboy Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 It's also has to be said that Caldwell and Lindsay have lost all credibility as board members this week. The argument that we can rely on them to protect the fan's interest on Barmack's board is a load of shite. If they signed off on Wednesday's statement they will sign off on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 13 minutes ago, steelboy said: It's also has to be said that Caldwell and Lindsay have lost all credibility as board members this week. The argument that we can rely on them to protect the fan's interest on Barmack's board is a load of shite. If they signed off on Wednesday's statement they will sign off on anything. Assuming they didnt sign off on it with one arm twisted behind their backs and a gun pointing at their heads. Also assuming they had a vote which hasnt really been confirmed (unless I missed something which is possible). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 29 minutes ago, steelboy said: They surely can't be letting people who have signed up during this process have a vote? Why not, if you're a member you get a vote, what's your problem with that approach 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, Spiderpig said: Why not, if you're a member you get a vote, what's your problem with that approach 🤔 It opens up the chance that Barmack is signing up fake members to vote on his behalf. If it's a fiver a vote then it's money well spent for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 37 minutes ago, steelboy said: They surely can't be letting people who have signed up during this process have a vote? Be interesting to see what numbers have actually applied and what checks are carried out. Might make the surge in betting on election date look minimal. Those 500 applications from California could be a bit dubious as well. If numbers are minimal it should have no damaging effect. Seriously, I suspect little thought will have been given to that aspect. If there has been a huge uplift then maybe it should be looked at although it is a bit late. And how far back do you go? If I was wanting to influence the previous vote or this one I would have been feeding in phantom voters for months rather than flooding them in at the last minute. To bring in a retrospective cut off date would piss off those members who legitimately joined up to be heard, one way or another. Too far down the line I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 3 minutes ago, dennyc said: To bring in a retrospective cut off date would piss off those members who legitimately joined up to be heard, one way or another. Too far down the line I think. If people are paying a fiver to sign up to kill fan ownership they can get to fuck. I'll definitely be asking about this whenever the 'surgeries' are happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 56 minutes ago, steelboy said: Can you ask for details of the share subscription in each of the 6 years. Specifically how many shares, who can buy them and how much each party pays per share? Got a reply, it covers this off. Will post it in a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 13 minutes ago, dennyc said: Be interesting to see what numbers have actually applied and what checks are carried out. Might make the surge in betting on election date look minimal. Those 500 applications from California could be a bit dubious as well. If numbers are minimal it should have no damaging effect. Seriously, I suspect little thought will have been given to that aspect. If there has been a huge uplift then maybe it should be looked at although it is a bit late. And how far back do you go? If I was wanting to influence the previous vote or this one I would have been feeding in phantom voters for months rather than flooding them in at the last minute. To bring in a retrospective cut off date would piss off those members who legitimately joined up to be heard, one way or another. Too far down the line I think. I would think and don't quote me on this that the folk who were signed up at the time the investment proposal was mooted will get a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 26 minutes ago, wellgirl said: I would think and don't quote me on this that the folk who were signed up at the time the investment proposal was mooted will get a vote. You better hope they do or you will have wasted your time for months. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 9 minutes ago, steelboy said: If people are paying a fiver to sign up to kill fan ownership they can get to fuck. I'll definitely be asking about this whenever the 'surgeries' are happening. I do agree it is something that could have been considered. Finding out the numbers might bring it into perspective. If 15 folk have joined up then fair enough. But if it is well into the 100s then that would seem unusual. It is also fair to emphasise that folk might have legitimately been spurred to join because of the proposal, to support the Society when under attack. So is it fair to deny them their say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 25 minutes ago, steelboy said: It opens up the chance that Barmack is signing up fake members to vote on his behalf. If it's a fiver a vote then it's money well spent for him. Given the shambles that the WS seems to have been in, I would not worry about it, it will be this time next year before the applications are processed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 2 minutes ago, dennyc said: I do agree it is something that could have been considered. Finding out the numbers might bring it into perspective. If 15 folk have joined up then fair enough. But if it is well into the 100s then that would seem unusual. It is also fair to emphasise that folk might have legitimately been spurred to join because of the proposal, to support the Society when under attack. So is it fair to deny them their say? I think you are right that people have joined up in support of the society - but there has to be some kind of cut of period - that's something they'll need to clarify though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 57 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Got a reply, it covers this off. Will post it in a bit. Summary is as follows: - 6 different share issues every August for 6 years. - each issue will have a different number of shares issued and at a different price per share (the same price for everyone each year but at a different price each year) - calculation is fully re-worked by legal advisors at the moment (due to the changes) - was always the intention and remains that this calculation for each of the 6 years is fully detailed in the Heads of Terms to be released with the voting papers - current private/other shareholders would still have the opportunity to buy a number of the new shares based on their current shareholding at the time of each issue – this is a fundamental legal right that they hold. - if they did not wish to acquire any of the new shares within the first release, still able to participate in future releases. - basically will be asked 6 times what they would like to do and will make 6 separate decisions with full papers being released to them on each occasion. - should some of the current other shareholders decide not to purchase any further shares, then the Well Society will acquire those shares Also confirmed that both the Club and WS have engaged outside legal teams to advise on the deals independently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 1 hour ago, steelboy said: If people are paying a fiver to sign up to kill fan ownership they can get to fuck. I'll definitely be asking about this whenever the 'surgeries' are happening. What about folk who are paying more than a fiver to maintain fan ownership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said: - each issue will have a different number of shares issued and at a different price per share (the same price for everyone each year but at a different price each year) Cheers. This is impossible. If Barmack is to go from 0-46% and the the Well Society from 71% to 51% with Barmack putting in only 10% more money that the Well Society then Barmack has to be paying a significantly lower price per share. It also doesn't clear up the range of percentage the Well Society can end up with dependent on private shareholder uptake. And we also need to know if Erik Barmack can buy any more shares if the Well Society runs out of funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted June 21 Author Report Share Posted June 21 It's been mentioned, rightly, that private shareholders could sell some or all of their shares to Erik Barmack or his associates. However, its also quite possible that they could sell or donate some or all their shares to the Society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 6 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: It's been mentioned, rightly, that private shareholders could sell some or all of their shares to Erik Barmack or his associates. However, its also quite possible that they could sell or donate some or all their shares to the Society. Considering the Society will have to find a way to raise £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three as part of the agreement between the club board and Wild Sheep Sports, I'm not sure it'll be in a position to start spending money on shares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted June 21 Author Report Share Posted June 21 4 minutes ago, David said: Considering the Society will have to find a way to raise £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three as part of the agreement between the club board and Wild Sheep Sports, I'm not sure it'll be in a position to start spending money on shares. So, what you're saying is that private shareholders could donate some or all of their shares to the Society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 5 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: So, what you're saying is that private shareholders could donate some or all of their shares to the Society? If private shareholders wished to do that, perhaps. You'd need to check the small print. I guess the question really comes down to if private shareholders would buy shares and then gift them to the Society. Or if they'd rather sell them to someone and get their money back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dossertillidie2 Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 21 minutes ago, David said: Considering the Society will have to find a way to raise £200k for the first three years and £250k for the next three as part of the agreement between the club board and Wild Sheep Sports, I'm not sure it'll be in a position to start spending money on shares. Almost like that’s part of the plan 👀 he has actually annoyed me tonight by making himself so public but being extremely selective in what questions he answers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 8 minutes ago, Dossertillidie2 said: Almost like that’s part of the plan 👀 he has actually annoyed me tonight by making himself so public but being extremely selective in what questions he answers More annoyance incoming... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casagolda Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said: current private/other shareholders would still have the opportunity to buy a number of the new shares based on their current shareholding at the time of each issue – this is a fundamental legal right that they hold. How can they guaranteed the % of shares the Well Society or Erik Barmack will hold if this is the case? If The Well Society is guaranteed 50.1% and current shareholder can buy then wouldn't Barmack's share % fall? Or is the possible Well Society % a max of 50.1%? and could still fall below a majority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 Just now, Casagolda said: How can they guaranteed the % of shares the Well Society or Erik Barmack will hold if this is the case? If The Well Society is guaranteed 50.1% and current shareholder can buy then wouldn't Barmack's share % fall? Or is the possible Well Society % a max of 50.1%? and could still fall below a majority? The latter is definitely my understanding and I believe that of the Well Society board too, I think Derek posted similar on Twitter the other night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted June 21 Author Report Share Posted June 21 After a lot of thought, and wading through pages of questions and answers and jargon and other technical stuff that i don't fully understand, I'm of the opinion that this deal isn't for me. The latest iteration of the deal doesn't change much in my view. That said, I'm onboard with the reason for considering deal (but not this particular deal). Our club cannot stand still it has to move on just as the Scottish footballing world is moving on. Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should be trying to emulate the city clubs, such as Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts; thats a pipedream. We have to adapt and update our business model just to retain our current status in the pecking order. Thats not to say that it hasn't been working. It has, but its faced increasing challenges. We'll always be a selling club fact. Its becoming increasingly difficult to retain budding young players from our Academy. In time that impacts on transfer fees received. Our Academy infrastructure needs updated to help attract and retain young talent as they eye better competing facilities elsewhere. Fir Park is ageing, and sentiment won't pay the maintenance bills. At a micro scale, the POD Stand badly needs upgrading and that won't come cheap. Its facilities are poor by today's standards. At a macro scale, we may one day need to move away from Fir Park. These are just examples as to why the status quo isn't an option. That then leaves us with the Society. Historically, and even recently it has adopted a laissez faire/hands off approach to the club's overall management. Even of late, it has taken a back seat to all the online shenanigans and online debate (I'm not for a minute suggesting that it should have been answering every post or tweet). It should have though, for example, issued a simple but short reply to the latest Barmack amendment. That passive approach can't continue. Its the club's main shareholder and owner and is being sidelined! It has to be more proactive and assertive. That is why its much awaited Strategic Plan has to deliver a bold, realistic but ultimately safer alternative to the Wild Sheep proposal. It also has to launch this well before the vote opens on 1 July to allow members time to digest the details, submit questions, and compare it to the Barmack scheme ( I do appreciate that hard work is going on behind the scenes). Edit. Just after I posted, I received the Society's response. Fair enough. Its embarrassing though that the Society has had to engage lawyers to pore over the latest proposal. Possibly different legal opinion to that engaged the Executive Board! You couldn't make it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.