New Investment Options

[Dossertillidie2]

9 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, I think looking at raising money outside membership is critical; there's no reason we can't be speaking to local  or international companies/firms etc. for £10/20/30/40k sponsorship deals a season for the club/investment into the WS or Club where they can bring specific pieces of information, skills or products to support us.

I'm not convinced full time employees are the answer if we wish to retain the status quo from a WS perspective; there needs to be a clear line between the role of the WS and the role of the Exec Board/Club management. If we're asking the WS to do more of the work which the Exec Board is (supposed) to do like looking for investment, increased sponsorship, local partnerships etc., then I think we're moving into different territory in terms of roles and responsibilities, which would need to be explored.

The WS should remain as it is for me, essentially raising rainy day money up to a certain point (let's for argument say that's the magic £750k number, or round it up to £1m); once it reaches that total, anything over and above that raised can then go to the club as additional funds or as a soft loan etc. to add to transfer funds, or to cover loan costs and so on. Also, there's no reason that the WS can't start to use its membership more; there's thousands of people there; many of whom will have very good business acumen/skills and experience in areas which can support the Society with its targets and mission. It doesn't necessarily take a full time team to achieve that, with the right people in the right places. I do think that some sort of overall Secretary/Executive type role would be beneficial, to keep things ticking over and monitoring progress; although the existing governance structure would point to that being the Chairperson(s) of the WS Board.

I think there's been a bit of a mashing together of roles and responsibilities over the last few weeks/months and I think it's a narrative that's been driven forward by the Outgoing Chairman; the WS and its Board/Members aren't responsible for the day-to-day operations of the club and its ability to raise monies through investment, sponsorship or otherwise, nor should they be.

The fact that the Exec Board didn't appoint a CEO for well over a year shows that the ball was very much dropped; the kind of leadership the Club could have had over the last 18-24 months with someone in place would have changed our current situation drastically; we can't ignore that. Although, for the record, I think that Brian Caldwell is the right man for the job; i can remember one or two of the previous shortlist not exactly inspiring confidence.

It feels very much like a rewriting of the way the club has been allowed to drift unguided over the last 3 or 4 years (go and take a look at Vietnam91's latest post to see the kind of Outgoing Chairman we have).

They should absolutely have input into that; for example, if a proposed sponsor or investor is an arms company, I doubt that would go down well (there was a recent case of that in Germany with Rheinmetall and Dortmund where it went through and the fans weren't happy). The structure has been to this point that the WS would be in the background with the Exec Board making the strategic decisions when required, with day to day run by the CEO and others.

I think consistent top-6 and cup runs is definitely achievable and is actually well within our current means; we've shown that in the past. I think a lot of that is down to squad building and having relative stability at the club; we saw that with Robinson and McCall before him.

On your last point, outside of X/Twitter (which, frankly, is to be expected, it's a vile place) I haven't seen much of the venom/belittling. I accept there's been a few testy replies on here and P&B (it's a very emotive subject, after all) but for the most part it feels like it's been done in good spirit.

I’m sure with a bit of work and a decent offer in return there would be at least 10 companies out there that would be willing to offer £30k a year investment each on a “drawdown when needed” offer as a form of corporate consortium that would save us from giving half our club away for feck all!

equates to the same as what the exec board are willing to give to a guy who says he has no business plan for his £300k a year 

[texanwellfan]

13 hours ago, wellgirl said:

Email just in from the well society. The cut off date for members who are eligible to vote is 10th of June at noon. 

July??

[weeyin]

13 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

July??

June - if you are a new member who joined after 10th June you don't get to vote on the proposal.

[Kmcalpin]

From reading posts on here, and on P & B and certainly on FB it seems that the "discussion" has now reached a stalemate stage with polarised views.  That said, there have been some very decent posts and a lot of interesting research has been carried out. Sadly, some acrimony is creeping in to the considerations, especially on FB. Entrenched division will help no-one, least of all our club. I suspect little will change now until the Society publishes its long awaited Strategic Plan and the Wild Sheep vote takes place.  Lets be patient with the Society meantime.

[santheman]

2 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

From reading posts on here, and on P & B and certainly on FB it seems that the "discussion" has now reached a stalemate stage with polarised views.  That said, there have been some very decent posts and a lot of interesting research has been carried out. Sadly, some acrimony is creeping in to the considerations, esecially on FB. Entrenched division will help no-one, least of all our club. I suspect little will change now until the Society publishes its long awaited Strategic Plan and the Wild Sheep vote takes place.  Lets be patient with the Society meantime.

Have go agree with that.

I think the longer this goes on the worse it's going to get so it's important that the WS get their proposals out there sooner rather than later. Appreciate they're all volunteers and have put an enormous amount of work into it but the longer this drags on I fear the division and acrimony amongst our fans will only get worse.

I only hope what they do eventually publish blows what EB is proposing out of the water.

 

[David]

10 minutes ago, santheman said:

I only hope what they do eventually publish blows what EB is proposing out of the water.

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, actually document clearly what Erik is proposing? I mean, his actual plans?

That's a serious question. I've asked the man himself and been told that it's unfair to expect a plan with solid deliverables, projected return on investment, and so on.

His reply basically goes along the lines of "vote for me first, then you can see what I end up doing."

[wellfan]

The Executive Board is dividing the fanbase through their underhand actions, and it’s clear to me that's what McMahon wants as it allows him to succeed. 

If Barmack is successful, he inherits a divided club, and the Well Society dies. That outcome will create a very real threat to the long-term existence of the club as we know it. Good luck, Erik! 

Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of fans realise this or are capable of figuring this out, or are perhaps just too selfish to care, but that's what happens when you mix morons (see Facebook/Twitter) with democracy. 

[steelboy]

People and companies from outside the support just giving money to the Well Society is pie in the sky stuff. Not going to happen. It might have been possible 20 years ago but not in the current financial climate in the UK. 

It's also worth remembering that the club have full time staff whose job it is to seek out potential sponsors and commercial partners. We don't want to have the club and society competing for sponsors.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

10 hours ago, David said:

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, actually document clearly what Erik is proposing? I mean, his actual plans?

That's a serious question. I've asked the man himself and been told that it's unfair to expect a plan with solid deliverables, projected return on investment, and so on.

His reply basically goes along the lines of "vote for me first, then you can see what I end up doing."

This for me is a very important point.

Those in favour of investment have demanded the Well Society put forward their plans for growing the business and increasing revenue streams should this deal be voted down.

Yet the same demand is not being made of Wild Sheep Enterprises.

We are basically going to give our club away to a guy we dont know for £300k a year in the hope that he is a decent bloke and actually has the business acumen and, more importantly, intent to grow the club and make it a success.

Its good that Wild Sheep have come back with the 50.5% shareholding offer and perhaps shows a willingness to negotiate. However, in reality it wouldnt make much difference given that they would effectively control the Executive Board on day 1. Just look at how little influence the Society has at the moment with 71% shareholding. 

My concern is that the Well Society have been pretty much kept at arms length throughout all of this and it is the Executive Board that are driving this deal. The same board that got us into a situation where they are telling us we cant survive without outside investment.

The Society proposals are very close to publication. Lets see what they look like and judge the new Society Board on that as opposed to the previous incarnation which was set up to be kept in a dark corner by those currently running the club.

[tottenmfc]

I don't often post on here but feel compelled to put down my thoughts on this somewhere to see if I'm missing something. So here are my thoughts (apologies, it's a long one):

1. There seems to be a view from some that the club are in some dire situation and need to accept any investment we can get. This simply isn't the case as far as I can see and even if it was we could likely sell Miller and/or Bair this week and be secure financially. Given our turnover, we will always be a club running close to breakeven over the longer term and like most clubs in Scotland part of our business model will involve selling players on at a profit. There is nothing concrete in the proposed deal that suggests any of this will change.
2. The financials of the deal from an existing shareholder perspective simply don't make sense, even with the revised terms. The valuation placed on the club of £4m can be debated but taking that as acceptable, the WS currently owns 71% of the shares (71% x £4m = £2.84m). At the end of this 6 year deal the WS own 50.1% and Wild Sheep Sports owns 47% but during this period, the WS has to invest an additional £1.35m and Wild Sheep Sports invests £1.95m. So even if at the end of the term, the club has made no progress and retains the £4m valuation, (ignoring the impact of inflation etc.) Wild Sheep Sports have a holding worth £1.88m from a total investment of £1.95m, while the WS have invested £1.35m and written off half of the loan given to the club and seen their holding go from a value of £2.84m to £2.004m. Swap out the WS for an individual investor and where is the incentive for them to accept these terms? Would an individual not simply say, if you want the club, front up the £2.84m and you can buy my shares (assuming they agreed with the £4m valuation)?
3. Point two becomes even more ridiculous when you look at what Wild Sheep Sports get from day 1. They invest £350k, hold 8% of shares but get 3 board members (same as the WS) and have a deciding vote where there is a 4-4 tie, meanwhile should there be a requirement to plug any shortfall in the finances, the WS is still on the hook for that. In addition, if Wild Sheep Sports turn out to be a shambles and the WS want rid of them, they basically just walk away with their money back in 2 years and the only losers are the club and the WS. I struggle to believe that any other company would accept an 8% shareholder having this level of influence with such a low level of risk.
4. Wild Sheep Sports suggest they can add value but have provided no actual details of their plans or any figures / targets. I appreciate you wouldn't share all the granular detail but simply throwing out buzzwords about "engagement" / "interaction" or whatever it is, along with teasing some documentary suggestion means absolutely nothing. There is also no suggestion of how they plan to generate a return from their investment - the obvious assumption is that they hope to increase the value of the club and sell their holding after 6 years and/or start paying dividends. Even if they did enhance the financials of the club, the valuation of the club would have to more than double for the WS to maintain the value of their holding and break even (again ignoring inflation) from their investment (current £2.84m holding + £1.35m investment = £4.19m with a 50.1% = a valuation of £8.36m) - this seems extremely unlikely.
5. A lot of noise is being made by a number of fans suggesting that the WS have to provide some sort of counter proposal, otherwise this should automatically be accepted, which again makes no sense. This isn't like a general election where both parties put forward a manifesto and you pick the one you like. The WS is the majority shareholder currently and is the status quo, while the Wild Sheep Sports proposal is the alternative. The question is simply is the alternative an improvement on the status quo? Given the above points I would suggest this is a deal that would never see the light of day in any other business, and it seems blatantly obvious to me that the status quo, which has delivered modest profits for the club over the long term and kept us competitive in the top flight, is the much better option.

[santheman]

10 hours ago, David said:

Can you, or anyone else for that matter, actually document clearly what Erik is proposing? I mean, his actual plans?

That's a serious question. I've asked the man himself and been told that it's unfair to expect a plan with solid deliverables, projected return on investment, and so on.

His reply basically goes along the lines of "vote for me first, then you can see what I end up doing."

Haven't spoken to anyone yet who can answer that but the romance of some American investing in the club has certainly swayed a few people who aren't looking beyond the headline grabber into the actual detail of the offer.

The same ones also seem to think that we need investment at any cost (thanks Mr McMahon)and as his is the only offer on the table we should just take it.

I have a few 'Well supporting mates in that group and have done my best to convince them it's a bad deal with some success, but I think until the WS come out with their plan some are still going to think that EB's proposal is the way forward.

Hopefully that will give me the ammunition I need to convince the remaining EB fanboys in my circle otherwise.

Its actually frightening how many of them had no real knowledge of the WS, how many members it has and how much funds it has raised.

Pretty sure I'm not alone in that.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

16 minutes ago, tottenmfc said:

I don't often post on here but feel compelled to put down my thoughts on this somewhere to see if I'm missing something. So here are my thoughts (apologies, it's a long one):

1. There seems to be a view from some that the club are in some dire situation and need to accept any investment we can get. This simply isn't the case as far as I can see and even if it was we could likely sell Miller and/or Bair this week and be secure financially. Given our turnover, we will always be a club running close to breakeven over the longer term and like most clubs in Scotland part of our business model will involve selling players on at a profit. There is nothing concrete in the proposed deal that suggests any of this will change.
2. The financials of the deal from an existing shareholder perspective simply don't make sense, even with the revised terms. The valuation placed on the club of £4m can be debated but taking that as acceptable, the WS currently owns 71% of the shares (71% x £4m = £2.84m). At the end of this 6 year deal the WS own 50.1% and Wild Sheep Sports owns 47% but during this period, the WS has to invest an additional £1.35m and Wild Sheep Sports invests £1.95m. So even if at the end of the term, the club has made no progress and retains the £4m valuation, (ignoring the impact of inflation etc.) Wild Sheep Sports have a holding worth £1.88m from a total investment of £1.95m, while the WS have invested £1.35m and written off half of the loan given to the club and seen their holding go from a value of £2.84m to £2.004m. Swap out the WS for an individual investor and where is the incentive for them to accept these terms? Would an individual not simply say, if you want the club, front up the £2.84m and you can buy my shares (assuming they agreed with the £4m valuation)?
3. Point two becomes even more ridiculous when you look at what Wild Sheep Sports get from day 1. They invest £350k, hold 8% of shares but get 3 board members (same as the WS) and have a deciding vote where there is a 4-4 tie, meanwhile should there be a requirement to plug any shortfall in the finances, the WS is still on the hook for that. In addition, if Wild Sheep Sports turn out to be a shambles and the WS want rid of them, they basically just walk away with their money back in 2 years and the only losers are the club and the WS. I struggle to believe that any other company would accept an 8% shareholder having this level of influence with such a low level of risk.
4. Wild Sheep Sports suggest they can add value but have provided no actual details of their plans or any figures / targets. I appreciate you wouldn't share all the granular detail but simply throwing out buzzwords about "engagement" / "interaction" or whatever it is, along with teasing some documentary suggestion means absolutely nothing. There is also no suggestion of how they plan to generate a return from their investment - the obvious assumption is that they hope to increase the value of the club and sell their holding after 6 years and/or start paying dividends. Even if they did enhance the financials of the club, the valuation of the club would have to more than double for the WS to maintain the value of their holding and break even (again ignoring inflation) from their investment (current £2.84m holding + £1.35m investment = £4.19m with a 50.1% = a valuation of £8.36m) - this seems extremely unlikely.
5. A lot of noise is being made by a number of fans suggesting that the WS have to provide some sort of counter proposal, otherwise this should automatically be accepted, which again makes no sense. This isn't like a general election where both parties put forward a manifesto and you pick the one you like. The WS is the majority shareholder currently and is the status quo, while the Wild Sheep Sports proposal is the alternative. The question is simply is the alternative an improvement on the status quo? Given the above points I would suggest this is a deal that would never see the light of day in any other business, and it seems blatantly obvious to me that the status quo, which has delivered modest profits for the club over the long term and kept us competitive in the top flight, is the much better option.

Bravo sir! 

This is my view entirely.

Not sure why everyone cant see this.

 

[StAndrew7]

I think one point I'd add to the whole symbolic 50.1% thing, is that this is (as I understand it, anyway) entirely dependent on existing private shareholders not taking up the opportunity to purchase shares at any of the share issues over the next six years.

So say, for example, I decide for the first three years not to increase my holding, but then decide to do it for the last three; this will do one, or a combination of several things: increase the amount of "investment" required from the WS, increase the amount of the outstanding loan to be converted into shares to get to 50.1%, or reduce the WS' overall shareholding.

It is a legal right of existing shareholders to purchase additional shares at any issue. 

That doesn't mean they will, but if they do, it will cause all sorts of variations/changes/increases/alterations in holdings.

I'm not clear on whether or not they can increase their holding, but they can certainly purchase shares to retain their existing level of holding. I believe there will be information on this in the proposals released as part of the voting information packs.

[steelboy]

The Well Society don't have the new Head of Terms yet so no one actually knows what it's in it apart from McMahon and Barmack. 

Fixing a date for a vote before you know what's the vote is for seems a bit unusual to me.....

 

[Kmcalpin]

18 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

This is my view entirely.

Not sure why everyone cant see this.

There will be a good reason for that. For the record, I'm against the EB proposal.

I was always taught that its counterproductive, and sometimes dangerous, in any debate or discussion to say "I can't understand why you think that or you're not understanding me" or words to that effect. In such a situation I always took it upon myself that it was my fault that I wasn't explaining things properly or not listening to the other party. 

We may well be right in any discussion, but we have to understand where the other party is coming from. Thats down to us to listen and address their concerns. All that said, some fans genuinely believe that the EB proposal is worth supporting. Thats democracy, and a foundation of the Society.  

 

[bobbybingo]

48 minutes ago, santheman said:

Haven't spoken to anyone yet who can answer that but the romance of some American investing in the club has certainly swayed a few people who aren't looking beyond the headline grabber into the actual detail of the offer.

The same ones also seem to think that we need investment at any cost (thanks Mr McMahon)and as his is the only offer on the table we should just take it.

I have a few 'Well supporting mates in that group and have done my best to convince them it's a bad deal with some success, but I think until the WS come out with their plan some are still going to think that EB's proposal is the way forward.

Hopefully that will give me the ammunition I need to convince the remaining EB fanboys in my circle otherwise.

Its actually frightening how many of them had no real knowledge of the WS, how many members it has and how much funds it has raised.

Pretty sure I'm not alone in that.

 

The folk who are demanding 'Get it done' on social media are, without exception, unable to give one single concrete example of how EB plans to bring money into Motherwell, but they like the sound of his magic beans, so it's all good.

They also labour under the misapprehension the Well Society are/have been running the club, so it's entirely their fault we haven't signed  Haaland and won the league.

The one good thing about all that is, they don't have a vote.

[StAndrew7]

1 minute ago, bobbybingo said:

The one good thing about all that is, they don't have a vote.

Some of them (probably) will... 

[dennyc]

I find it really frustrating that some people don't see, or refuse to see,  the obvious differences between the roles of the two Boards.

The WS Board were established to grow Society Membership thus amassing funds for the use of the Club when required, to protect those funds,  to work with the Club and also independently to promote Community involvement and awareness. As majority Shareholders they should also oversee the work of the Exec Board, working harmoniously in Partnership.

The Exec Board exist to oversee ALL operations of the Football Club. Just as in every other Football Club.  They have responsibility for all aspects of the day to day running of the Organisation,  the financial wellbeing of the Club, safeguarding the future of the Club and working with various Authorities to ensure that all requirements are met. That is why the Club Board employ a CEO (of whom I have high hopes) and qualified Accountants in addition to a Football Manager and a coaching team. Working In Partnership with the Society Board who should be viewed as an asset and not a hindrance.

Distinct responsibilities. Different roles. a partnership. Essential to enable both bodies to function effectively.

And yet so many have been taken in by a strategy asserting that it is up to the Society Board, at the drop of a hat, to come up with a Business Plan detailing external investment plans for a Football Club currently under the Leadership of Jim McMahon and his Board. To essentially carry out perhaps the important role of that Club Board.....maintaining financial stability. And remember, our Chairman has placed no such pressure on Mr Barmack to present such a detailed or ambitious plan. Perhaps no surprise given that it is under his stewardship that we have seen such turmoil on and off the pitch for a good number of years. He has successfully created an atmosphere of fear and urgency, all to enable him to ride off into the sunset. And aided by one or two who have mysteriously appeared out of the blue on here and on P&B pushing the same corrosive agenda.

As a direct result of that strategy, expectations of the WS Board have gone through the roof. Any Business Plan they are asked to produce should be focused on how they plan to grow the Society, leaving the Club Board to carry out the duties which they were elected to perform. If some of the Club Board are unable or unwilling to carry out those duties they should move on.

I do believe securing fresh investment would be of great benefit to Motherwell Football Club. Of course it would.   But I also believe that a forward thinking, dynamic Club Board under new leadership can secure such investment and address inefficiencies within the Club. Without bringing about the demise of the Well Society and all it stands for.

 

 

[tottenmfc]

40 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

There will be a good reason for that. For the record, I'm against the EB proposal.

I was always taught that its counterproductive, and sometimes dangerous, in any debate or discussion to say "I can't understand why you think that or you're not understanding me" or words to that effect. In such a situation I always took it upon myself that it was my fault that I wasn't explaining things properly or not listening to the other party. 

We may well be right in any discussion, but we have to understand where the other party is coming from. Thats down to us to listen and address their concerns. All that said, some fans genuinely believe that the EB proposal is worth supporting. Thats democracy, and a foundation of the Society.  

 

The problem is that I think people against the proposal are quite clearly able to identify at least one clear reason why they have arrived at their view. I have yet to see anyone who supports the proposal offer anything factual that supports that view. It seems very much like they've heard "Netflix" and that's enough.

The club board themselves have stated we are not in some dire financial situation and have shown the figures that demonstrate the club is making a (modest) profit over the medium / long term. There will clearly be fluctuations year-to-year in there but that is to be expected in most businesses.

The fans I have seen in favour of the proposal also seem to suggest it is on the Well Society to improve the commercial side of things for the club, which is not the case. The club has people in place who are paid a salary for that very purpose. All I would expect any proposal from the Well Society to address would be how they believe they can build up more of a buffer to cover short-term shortfalls or assist with certain capital expenditure (likely to be facilities etc.).

As a slight aside, the EB plan reminds me in many ways of a South Park episode that featured the Underpants Gnomes... perhaps a niche reference there though...

[StAndrew7]

6 minutes ago, tottenmfc said:

As a slight aside, the EB plan reminds me in many ways of a South Park episode that featured the Underpants Gnomes... perhaps a niche reference there though...

Hey you! What's Phase 2?!

[weeyin]

The great thing about democracy is it gives everyone a voice.

The terrible thing about democracy is that a vote from someone based on the colour of your tie counts the same as a vote from someone who has spent 5 years researching key issues.

[tottenmfc]

18 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I find it really frustrating that some people don't see, or refuse to see,  the obvious differences between the roles of the two Boards.

The WS Board were established to grow Society Membership thus amassing funds for the use of the Club when required, to protect those funds,  to work with the Club and also independently to promote Community involvement and awareness. As majority Shareholders they should also oversee the work of the Exec Board, working harmoniously in Partnership.

The Exec Board exist to oversee ALL operations of the Football Club. Just as in every other Football Club.  They have responsibility for all aspects of the day to day running of the Organisation,  the financial wellbeing of the Club, safeguarding the future of the Club and working with various Authorities to ensure that all requirements are met. That is why the Club Board employ a CEO (of whom I have high hopes) and qualified Accountants in addition to a Football Manager and a coaching team. Working In Partnership with the Society Board who should be viewed as an asset and not a hindrance.

Distinct responsibilities. Different roles. a partnership. Essential to enable both bodies to function effectively.

And yet so many have been taken in by a strategy asserting that it is up to the Society Board, at the drop of a hat, to come up with a Business Plan detailing external investment plans for a Football Club currently under the Leadership of Jim McMahon and his Board. To essentially carry out perhaps the important role of that Club Board.....maintaining financial stability. And remember, our Chairman has placed no such pressure on Mr Barmack to present such a detailed or ambitious plan. Perhaps no surprise given that it is under his stewardship that we have seen such turmoil on and off the pitch for a good number of years. He has successfully created an atmosphere of fear and urgency, all to enable him to ride off into the sunset. And aided by one or two who have mysteriously appeared out of the blue on here and on P&B pushing the same corrosive agenda.

As a direct result of that strategy, expectations of the WS Board have gone through the roof. Any Business Plan they are asked to produce should be focused on how they plan to grow the Society, leaving the Club Board to carry out the duties which they were elected to perform. If some of the Club Board are unable or unwilling to carry out those duties they should move on.

I do believe securing fresh investment would be of great benefit to Motherwell Football Club. Of course it would.   But I also believe that a forward thinking, dynamic Club Board under new leadership can secure such investment and address inefficiencies within the Club. Without bringing about the demise of the Well Society and all it stands for.

 

 

Exactly this.

I remember when the Well Society was set-up people were adamant that they didn't want "unqualified" fans making decisions on every aspect of the club, and rightly this was never the intention.

Now this random American has appeared however, these same "unqualified" fans are expected to pull together a business plan for the club that will see an improvement on and off the park, while the same is not expected of said American.

It just proves to me that a brass neck and an overinflated sense of importance is enough to convince a significant number of people (including apparently the Motherwell FC Board) that you are some sort of business guru.

[Pepper]

I have the fear a large section of the society membership have never really believed in fan ownership and have at best viewed it as a stop gap until something, anything, better came along. 

Given three members of the society board voted for this, coud their views be more representative of the wider membership than we want to admit?

I've had this concern from the minute the society voted to hear the proposal.

Now we have the potential of this whole thing turning in to a unmitigated disaster no matter what way the vote goes -  it should never have got this far.

 

[bobbybingo]

20 minutes ago, Pepper said:

Given three members of the society board voted for this, coud their views be more representative of the wider membership than we want to admit?

 

Ask not what you can do for your club - ask what your club can do for you.

 

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said:

There will be a good reason for that. For the record, I'm against the EB proposal.

I was always taught that its counterproductive, and sometimes dangerous, in any debate or discussion to say "I can't understand why you think that or you're not understanding me" or words to that effect. In such a situation I always took it upon myself that it was my fault that I wasn't explaining things properly or not listening to the other party. 

We may well be right in any discussion, but we have to understand where the other party is coming from. Thats down to us to listen and address their concerns. All that said, some fans genuinely believe that the EB proposal is worth supporting. Thats democracy, and a foundation of the Society.  

 

Oh I totally get that.

Im not saying for a minute that folk arent entitled to their views or opinions.

Its just when asked, they cant really explain it other than parrotting the Official Club Statement(s).

If there was evidence out there that Wild Sheep had a credible plan to grow the club and that they could be trusted to do so in good faith, Id seriously consider it.

As there isnt, it just looks like what it is.

A very bad deal for the major shareholder (the fans).