Kmcalpin Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 This is a critical issue, so its time for a new thread. The Society has just sent out an email containing a provisional vote. Have all members received it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 Yes and I've voted 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsterwood Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 26 minutes ago, wellgirl said: Yes and I've voted What was vote options? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 3 minutes ago, robsterwood said: What was vote options? Yes, I would consider a proposal that would see the WS lose its majority or no I wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsterwood Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 16 minutes ago, Mad Dog said: Yes, I would consider a proposal that would see the WS lose its majority or no I wouldn't. Thanks for that. Any idea on what majority will vote for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 23 Author Report Share Posted February 23 11 minutes ago, robsterwood said: Thanks for that. Any idea on what majority will vote for? No idea. I'd prefer to go with the Society option but have voted to consider external options. I think it would be remiss to reject out of hand external options without knowing details. I do not want to influence anyone else though. Each to their own. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clackscat Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 Was a really well constructed and balanced communication. Basically asking for views as to whether losing the majority shareholding is a red line you would not cross, or whether you would consider a proposal leading to that on its merits. If negotiations commence and a final offer is put forward then members get to vote on that. I understand totally the emotions involved but I think it wrong to dismiss something out of hand without knowing what it involves 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsterwood Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 Sounds exciting times if it can take us to next level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grizzlyg Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said: This is a critical issue, so its time for a new thread. The Society has just sent out an email containing a provisional vote. Have all members received it? Yup and voted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 23 minutes ago, robsterwood said: Thanks for that. Any idea on what majority will vote for? No idea. It's not a yes or a no for me at this point but I would like more information on the potential offers so I said yes to consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 12 minutes ago, Clackscat said: Was a really well constructed and balanced communication. Basically asking for views as to whether losing the majority shareholding is a red line you would not cross, or whether you would consider a proposal leading to that on its merits. If negotiations commence and a final offer is put forward then members get to vote on that. I understand totally the emotions involved but I think it wrong to dismiss something out of hand without knowing what it involves Not sure I agree with your first sentence. The vote option is WS keeping or losing majority holding. That holding appears now to be 71%. WS would still retain slim majority at 51% so there is quite a negotiating option available if so desired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirParkCornerExile Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said: This is a critical issue, so its time for a new thread. The Society has just sent out an email containing a provisional vote. Have all members received it? nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mootherwell86 Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 FWIW I do believe that we should endeavour to have the Society keep its majority share. In my opinion it is the best way to safeguard the future of the club. However, in my opinion there are some changes needed within the club & society to changed the current direction of the club. Firstly, Comms from both parties need to be massively improved. Poor standards of club comms has been well documented since Alan Burrows left the club. This was highlighted with Kettlewells contract extension announcement this week. Amateur wouldn’t even be the word for it. In terms of the society I think the most insightful and worthwhile communication from it has come on here and P&B from Jay and Dez. Secondly, the Club and Well Society seem to be pulling in different directions. Visions of both need to align in order for us to make any progress. Believe this can be seen with recent talk of ‘investment’. Why wasn’t the Well Society given more time to formulate a a long term development plan before *that video and talk of investment was put to fans? Now it’s come across that Club Board are keen for investment ASAP whilst the Society are still coming up with their plan. Some joined up thinking would be good. Investment should be welcomed but only from the right parties. It must be ensured that the values of potential investors match those of the club and that they’re willing to work alongside the Well Society to protect the long term future of the club. It is absolutely imperative that a CEO is appointed ASAP so that we can begin to move forward on any front. Youth development and implementing effective player trading must be at the forefront of any long term strategies being proposed. Major changes needed in terms of recruitment process for us to start moving forward. Ideally before the Summer. If we can get the recruitment right and Sell a Lennon Miller or 2, we will be absolutely fine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirParkCornerExile Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said: No idea. I'd prefer to go with the Society option but have voted to consider external options. I think it would be remiss to reject out of hand external options without knowing details. I do not want to influence anyone else though. Each to their own. Exactly why dismiss out of hand without knowing the full details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 3 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said: Exactly why dismiss out of hand without knowing the full details. Indeed! Why throw anything out. I’m sure there will be a chance or two further down the line to vote against any proposition put forward. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 24 Author Report Share Posted February 24 55 minutes ago, Mootherwell86 said: Secondly, the Club and Well Society seem to be pulling in different directions. Visions of both need to align in order for us to make any progress. Believe this can be seen with recent talk of ‘investment’. Why wasn’t the Well Society given more time to formulate a a long term development plan before *that video and talk of investment was put to fans? Now it’s come across that Club Board are keen for investment ASAP whilst the Society are still coming up with their plan. Some joined up thinking would be good. I agree with most this. Despite owning the club, the Society seems to have taken a passive back seat role. It should have been more proactive. Derek Weir and Jim McMahon and perhaps others a year or two ago seem to be have been ploughing lone furrows. Credit to them for their service though. The Society ought to have been a bit quicker off the mark to draft up a proposal in principle. More joined up thinking required, as you say. On another tack, I'd like to hear a bit more about the other 3 or 4 external proposals which are not as far advanced as the 2 main ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 2 hours ago, Mad Dog said: No idea. It's not a yes or a no for me at this point but I would like more information on the potential offers so I said yes to consideration. It was a yes or no vote no? No other options? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellgirl Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 39 minutes ago, Mootherwell86 said: FWIW I do believe that we should endeavour to have the Society keep its majority share. In my opinion it is the best way to safeguard the future of the club. However, in my opinion there are some changes needed within the club & society to changed the current direction of the club. Firstly, Comms from both parties need to be massively improved. Poor standards of club comms has been well documented since Alan Burrows left the club. This was highlighted with Kettlewells contract extension announcement this week. Amateur wouldn’t even be the word for it. In terms of the society I think the most insightful and worthwhile communication from it has come on here and P&B from Jay and Dez. Secondly, the Club and Well Society seem to be pulling in different directions. Visions of both need to align in order for us to make any progress. Believe this can be seen with recent talk of ‘investment’. Why wasn’t the Well Society given more time to formulate a a long term development plan before *that video and talk of investment was put to fans? Now it’s come across that Club Board are keen for investment ASAP whilst the Society are still coming up with their plan. Some joined up thinking would be good. Investment should be welcomed but only from the right parties. It must be ensured that the values of potential investors match those of the club and that they’re willing to work alongside the Well Society to protect the long term future of the club. It is absolutely imperative that a CEO is appointed ASAP so that we can begin to move forward on any front. Youth development and implementing effective player trading must be at the forefront of any long term strategies being proposed. Major changes needed in terms of recruitment process for us to start moving forward. Ideally before the Summer. If we can get the recruitment right and Sell a Lennon Miller or 2, we will be absolutely fine. I think the communication hasn't been up to much before Alan left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsterwood Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 I think we should be ambitious. Speculate to achieve. Look at Wrexham. Others that have shown ambition. If we bring in better players and sells on we will thrive. We are u top league in Scotland. It can be publicised more. I would rather aim for higher and glory than exist as also ran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsterwood Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 No club would really die anyway if it goes wrong. Look at sevco. Airdrie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizoxy Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 I don't mind being ambitious, but Wrexham is a one off, and there's mileage in their story because a relatively modest investment can lead to them moving up some divisions and thus generating more interest for the tv show. The best we can do is finish 3rd and maybe win a cup, but there's a few clubs with budgets and fan bases that eclipse ours that can't even do that. Shit, we often finish above a couple of them. The level of investment that is transformative enough to really make it interesting isn't going to happen, but I'd be open to someone putting enough in to help us become more sustainable and secure, and improve our academy and facilities. The WS losing a controlling stake isn't a red line for me, but the kind of investment required to make me happy with that is probably out of reach. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 8 hours ago, Clackscat said: Was a really well constructed and balanced communication. As I've just posted on P&B (so apologies to folk who peruse both and are getting a repeat), it's been encouraging to see some positive mentions of the actual consultation email content itself like this. I'm not sure if that's the widespread response but there's certainly been some favourable comments made. It might not seem like it, but a lot of collective work went into the content to try and ensure it was as balanced as possible and avoided anything that was too leading in either direction, so if that has been achieved, it's a good thing. Although that said, one thing that maybe could have been clearer in hindsight going by some of the comments is that idea of the consultation being non-binding. It's to give the Well Society and club parameters within which to approach current, and any further, investment offers in terms of negotiations, while also clarifying if steps such as green lighting a CEO and beginning to rebuild & refresh the Executive Board can be undertaken, or whether those kinds of things need to remain on hold. However, I think it's worth highlighting that if the Hollywood A-Lister did indeed rock up at the Chapman Building carting wheelbarrows of cash and looking for majority shares, nobody would say "sorry Taylor hen, the Well Society voted in a non-binding consultation not to give up fan-ownership so you'll need to taxi it back to the airport". 😂 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 7 hours ago, wellgirl said: It was a yes or no vote no? No other options? Not at the moment. It's simply gauging opinion on whether or not we would be open to the idea of outside investment which would result in The Well Society holding less than 50% of shares in MFC. Do doubt there will be further options once a preferred bidder has been decided upon and more details of the investment can be made official. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yosemite sam Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 I don't know if I'm being a bit naive, but could there be situation where both parties have the same 50/50 ownership, and the invester could take out any profit/loss from his share of player sales etc, so he sees some kind of return for his investment, but we still have a say.in the running of the club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambo97 Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 7 hours ago, robsterwood said: No club would really die anyway if it goes wrong. Look at sevco. Airdrie. I'm sure the Third Lanark, Clydebank and Gretna fans would disagree. 1 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.