steelman1991 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 Just now, StAndrew7 said: Also, he's not. He's putting the money into the Society, who in turn give it to the Club as required. And aye. Just stop your DD then. I wasn't referring to myself though - trying to explain why maybe the guy who santheman was having a spat with on facebook might be rationalising his thought pattern. As I said I know of at least 2 folk who feel that the club should be run along the lines of 50 years ago when we had a majority shareholder.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 5 minutes ago, steelman1991 said: Why would I do that? The comment you posted on wasn't about me but someone santheman was having a "spat" with on facebook. StAndrew 7 is correct. Just clumsy diction. Apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelman1991 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 Just now, joewarkfanclub said: StAndrew 7 is correct. Just clumsy diction. Apologies. No need - the whole subject is emotive. I didn't take time to really comprehend the intention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 1 minute ago, steelman1991 said: No need - the whole subject is emotive. I didn't take time to really comprehend the intention. No issues. We all want whats best for the club. Its actually quite refreshing that there is so much agreement on here and P&B surrounding the investment proposal. We need to take the message beyond these boards though if we want to secure fan ownership of the club for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said: No issues. We all want whats best for the club. Its actually quite refreshing that there is so much agreement on here and P&B surrounding the investment proposal. We need to take the message beyond these boards though if we want to secure fan ownership of the club for the future. Already doing this on Facebook and Twitter. Apparently this is all "just spin to move support away from the investment which is the real money". 🤦♂️ Interestingly, when I've replied to people to challenge them or provide a slightly more realistic take... there hasn't been a response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 I've seen a few people on social media claim that they can still vote for Erik's proposal, and that he would be able to work hand in hand with the Society to implement their plan. A "win/win" for all concerned. It should be pointed out that this isn't the case. Under Erik's proposal the majority of the Society plan comes undone. it would be unworkable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 19 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Interestingly, when I've replied to people to challenge them or provide a slightly more realistic take... there hasn't been a response. There is some good scientific evidence that when you challenge (with evidence) someone on a strongly held belief - it actually causes them to strengthen that belief. That's one reason that trying to debate things on social media quickly deteriorates into shouting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 9 minutes ago, weeyin said: There is some good scientific evidence that when you challenge (with evidence) someone on a strongly held belief - it actually causes them to strengthen that belief. That's one reason that trying to debate things on social media quickly deteriorates into shouting. Aye, it does feel very much like this sometimes: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 59 minutes ago, weeyin said: There is some good scientific evidence that when you challenge (with evidence) someone on a strongly held belief - it actually causes them to strengthen that belief. That's one reason that trying to debate things on social media quickly deteriorates into shouting. Cognative Dissonance..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mccus28 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 Im going to be unpopular here and just to be up front I think EB's proposal isnt very good. But, Im very surprised about the amount of love for this WS proposal, it literally tells us nothing whilst using the word "stategic", 25 times and uses emotional language to get the fans behind it. This is literally as vague as EB's on funding projections, its quite poor really if you take the emotions out of it. No substance and is just a wish list, both sides MUST do better 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 8 minutes ago, Mccus28 said: Im going to be unpopular here and just to be up front I think EB's proposal isnt very good. But, Im very surprised about the amount of love for this WS proposal, it literally tells us nothing whilst using the word "stategic, 25 times" and uses emotional language to get the fans behind it. This is literally as vague as EB's on funding projections, its quite poor really if you take the emotions out of it. No substance and is just a wish list, both sides MUST do better I think @David has already covered this off a bit; this is a proposal, it's not a formal business plan. There's KPIs and ROI projections in the background which form part of the Business Plan side and will be discussed/released in due course I think. There's a danger with things like this that you overwhelm with too much information and a drip feed/progressive release of things often helps get messages across more efficiently. I understand you're not feeling it and that's fair but I do think there's more in this than anything Barmack has proposed on Twitter/P&B or in any of the lengthy statements released by the Club/Exec Board. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mccus28 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 41 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I think @David has already covered this off a bit; this is a proposal, it's not a formal business plan. There's KPIs and ROI projections in the background which form part of the Business Plan side and will be discussed/released in due course I think. There's a danger with things like this that you overwhelm with too much information and a drip feed/progressive release of things often helps get messages across more efficiently. I understand you're not feeling it and that's fair but I do think there's more in this than anything Barmack has proposed on Twitter/P&B or in any of the lengthy statements released by the Club/Exec Board. I understand what your saying but to play devils advocate, EB was ripped to pieces for not going into the minutia of any plans by some on here. Steelboy im sure wouldnt have been happy until EB was in his kitchen telling him how he was going to spend every single penny. I honestly want fan ownership to win the day but that release is nowhere near enough and as I said, just as bad as EB's but with a bit more emotion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 1 minute ago, Mccus28 said: I understand what your saying but to play devils advocate, EB was ripped to pieces for not going into the minutia of any plans by some on here. Steelboy im sure wouldnt have been happy until EB was in his kitchen telling him how he was going to spend every single penny. I honestly want fan ownership to win the day but that release is nowhere near enough and as I said, just as bad as EB's but with a bit more emotion. Fair; I do think that will come over the next few days based on what's been said on here, but I'm not privvy to the details/comms plan. One thing I will say, is that the plan does gives potential increases for rejuvenating the membership numbers from dormant members into regular contributors, season ticket sales along with target areas/towns and markets and the support/growth of the women's team. So there's some detail provided there. It's also got a timeline for how the investments will progress if EB's scheme doesn't go through; so again, dates and key deliverables are there. It definitely feels like there is more to come; with the session on Wednesday and the ongoing comms in the press etc. I would hope you (and we all) get the details that we're wanting. I am feeling far, far more positive about it all now though. I hope people can see just how much has gone into this plan, all the while dealing with the investment stuff; remember this was always something the Society was planning on doing, it's had to be sped up because of the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 50 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: I think @David has already covered this off a bit; this is a proposal, it's not a formal business plan. There's KPIs and ROI projections in the background which form part of the Business Plan side and will be discussed/released in due course I think. There's a danger with things like this that you overwhelm with too much information and a drip feed/progressive release of things often helps get messages across more efficiently. I understand you're not feeling it and that's fair but I do think there's more in this than anything Barmack has proposed on Twitter/P&B or in any of the lengthy statements released by the Club/Exec Board. The problem I would have is, if anyone asks me to give them a specific example of what the Well Society is proposing, I couldn't - which echoes the answers I get if I ask Erik Barmack's backers for a specific example of his plans. That being said, it's EB's proposal that people should be voting on, not the Society's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, bobbybingo said: The problem I would have is, if anyone asks me to give them a specific example of what the Well Society is proposing, I couldn't - which echoes the answers I get if I ask Erik Barmack's backers for a specific example of his plans. That being said, it's EB's proposal that people should be voting on, not the Society's. That's it in a nutshell. No matter how it's phrased or framed, we're voting for or against Barmack next week. Yes, the Society will then get to progress its plan; but we can ALL be involved in that as fans and WS members and have our say in it, which is one of the key messages of their proposal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 4 minutes ago, bobbybingo said: The problem I would have is, if anyone asks me to give them a specific example of what the Well Society is proposing, I couldn't - which echoes the answers I get if I ask Erik Barmack's backers for a specific example of his plans. That being said, it's EB's proposal that people should be voting on, not the Society's. Yeah. I think that some people think they are voting on one or the other - a few people on social media have said this - when it's not the case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 8 minutes ago, bobbybingo said: The problem I would have is, if anyone asks me to give them a specific example of what the Well Society is proposing, I couldn't - which echoes the answers I get if I ask Erik Barmack's backers for a specific example of his plans. On this; some of them are pretty clear, I thought? They're proposing increasing season ticket sales by targeting specific markets, towns and building a local Society presence in them, re-engaging with non-contributing members in their ranks to up their ability to raise funds annually (and increase the security of the Club as a result) and explore strategic investment opportunities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 If the Well Society had no plan right now I'd still vote for it, because doing nothing over the next 6 months is, for me, still better (and safer) than accepting EB's offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted July 2 Author Report Share Posted July 2 A lot of time and effort has been invested in this strategy, so well done to those behind it. It contains a lot of good ideas and there's plenty for us to digest and mull over. It does sound good, but will it work in practice? Much of its success or otherwise will depend on member input in the form of volunteering and thats where the Society has struggled so far. The Board cannot do everything on its own. How does it enlist the active participation of rank and file members? A few things stood out for me, but they're detailed issues, and they shouldn't detract from the overall quality of the document. I wasn't surprised at just how few members are contributing monthly. This is a legacy issue which arises from the confusion of the past, and one which I've raised before. Contribution levels also need to be more flexible. They should benefit the members, as opposed to making it easier for the Society, and make it easier for them to contribute. This does need to be addressed if financial targets are to be met. Understandably much is made of local connections and thats as it should be as we are a community club. However, some recognition could and should have been included of season ticket holders and members from outwith Lanarkshire, and indeed Scotland. There must be quite a few all told. Please don't forget us. I thought the spatial analysis of where season ticket holders and members live looks very interesting and promising, and if handled correctly, could yield some very valuable information. A final thought on numerous references to Fir Park. I didn't quite know what to make of them. Is the strategy saying we're staying at Fir Park come what may? Is a move away being rejected or is it just loose language? Anyway a good document but its just a start. Stage one is sort out the relationship between the Club (Executive Board) and its owner, the Society Board. A ridiculous polarised situation which mustn't be allowed to continue. Good to see a Society website being resurrected. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: A lot of time and effort has been invested in this strategy, so well done to those behind it. It contains a lot of good ideas and there's plenty for us to digest and mull overthink about. It does sound good, but will it work in practice? Much of its success or otherwise will depend on member input in the form of volunteering and thats where the Society has struggled so far. The Board cannot do everything on its own. How does it enlist the active participation of rank and file members? A few things stood out for me, but they're detailed issues, and they shouldn't detract from the overall quality of the document. I wasn't surprised at just how few members are contributing monthly. This is a legacy issue which arises from the confusion of the past, and one which I've raised before. Contribution levels also need to be more flexible. They should benefit the members, as opposed to making it easier for the Society, and make it easier for them to contribute. This does need to be addressed if financial targets are to be met. Understandably much is made of local connections and thats as it should be as we are a community club. However, some recognition could and should have been included of season ticket holders and members from outwith Lanarkshire, and indeed Scotland. There must be quite a few all told. Please don't forget us. I thought the spatial analysis of where season ticket holders and members live looks very interesting and promising, and if handled correctly, could yield some very valuable information. A final thought on numerous references to Fir Park. I didn't quite know what to make of them. Is the strategy saying we're staying at Fir Park come what may? Is a move away being rejected or is it just loose langauage? Anyway a good document but its just a start. Stage one is sort out the relationship between the Club (Executive Board) and its owner, the Society Board. A ridiculous polarised situation which mustn't be allowed to continue. Good to see a Society website being resurrected. First class post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: Understandably much is made of local connections and thats as it should be as we are a community club. However, some recognition could and should have been included of season ticket holders and members from outwith Lanarkshire, and indeed Scotland. There must be quite a few all told. Please don't forget us. A final thought on numerous references to Fir Park. I didn't quite know what to make of them. Is the strategy saying we're staying at Fir Park come what may? Is a move away being rejected or is it just loose langauage? Yeah, I'm in the same situation as you; I'm living well outside the local area now and will be moving even further away, eventually. I think the key thing is that we all still feel connected to the club, no matter the geographical constraints. I'm sure more will come for those of us who are outside of the Lanarkshire area. I personally wouldn't read too much into the Fir Park stuff, other than it's our home, it's an emotional attraction for us all and we all have tremendous (and terrible) memories there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clackscat Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 5 hours ago, StAndrew7 said: Already doing this on Facebook and Twitter. Apparently this is all "just spin to move support away from the investment which is the real money". 🤦♂️ Interestingly, when I've replied to people to challenge them or provide a slightly more realistic take... there hasn't been a response. And the same person thinks EB can't have complete control because he won't have 100% of the share ....... staggering 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prideoflanarkshire Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 In my opinion, the only way the WS can generate substantial increased revenue is for investment and not increased members. investors will want something in return for their investment. What are the WS offering in return? Shares/percentage of the club? Is that not the same as EB is offering right now? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuwell2 Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 8 minutes ago, prideoflanarkshire said: In my opinion, the only way the WS can generate substantial increased revenue is for investment and not increased members. investors will want something in return for their investment. What are the WS offering in return? Shares/percentage of the club? Is that not the same as EB is offering right now? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prideoflanarkshire Posted July 2 Report Share Posted July 2 Just now, Stuwell2 said: No. No what? 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.