StAndrew7 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 5 minutes ago, Mccus28 said: Wasn't aimed at you in the slightest unless Ive missed where you've called your fellow well fans stupid. As Ive stated before and will again, I don't think either party involved here has any great ideas or shown they can drive the club forward and I personally think that both must do better with their proposals and hopefully they can find some common ground. We are all on the same team here!!!!! Fair enough... but how are you voting? 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mccus28 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 21 minutes ago, tottenmfc said: Putting aside whether people are stupid or not, surely the only question to be answered here is "Is the Barmack deal good for MFC?". If you believe the answer is yes (which can only really be based on blind faith in a guy with zero experience in running a sports team at this point) then you vote in favour, if you don't think it is then you vote against. You don't have to be "blown away" by the WS proposal. The fact is that the status quo has allowed the club to run on a stable footing for years and delivered fairly decent on-field performance and a modest profit over that period. The refresh of the WS suggests they will be more proactive in looking to improve things further, but of course there are no guarantees that will happen. My concern is that people in favour of the proposal have simply heard "Netflix", thought about Wrexham, and that's enough for them. No amount of reason is going to change that unfortunately. Comments along the lines of "we can't afford to knock-back £2m" also suggest a lack of understanding of the actual proposal and of the current situation of the club, despite the Club Board themselves stating we are financially stable. Not everyone can or will be persuaded by reason or logic unfortunately. A very reasoned post so thanks for that and you raise some very valid points. I personally think we should be "blown away" if we want to gain ground and overtake the teams around us, this whole process should have been an exciting time for the club where we look at visions to take us forward but instead its turned into a sh*t show with in-fighting and division. I agree however we will be fine from a survival aspect if we remain with the WS but I also doubt we will see much difference from an income point of view and if thats how our fans vote then fine, its democratic. however as things stand Its not a great look for our fantastic club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 Grant Russell is making some good points on Twitter about Barmack's plan not including ongoing costs of staffing and support for the CRM system he is proposing. The AI and CRM have to deliver profit of £300,000 a year just to break even according to Barmack's plan but there's zero detail of how the marketing actually results in more money for the club. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mccus28 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 6 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Fair enough... but how are you voting? 🤣 Im honestly still not sure, i have massive reservations about both proposals if im honest, I feel we are all being forced to vote for the "least worst" which is spookily like our politics at the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 Just now, Mccus28 said: As Ive stated before and will again, I don't think either party involved here has any great ideas or shown they can drive the club forward and I personally think that both must do better with their proposals and hopefully they can find some common ground. Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment. Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder." According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares. However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business. More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments. This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived. If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured. So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 9 minutes ago, Mccus28 said: Im honestly still not sure, i have massive reservations about both proposals if im honest, I feel we are all being forced to vote for the least worst which is spookily like our politics at the moment I think the thing I would point out, is that the vote is essentially for or against Erik's investment plan. If it goes through, we're effectively at his mercy because of the control he'll receive from the start. £330k for 3 seats on the board and the chairmanship. Just over 1/3 of what the WS have in the Club right now and he's receiving far more than the Society ever has. The WS's vision/proposal is designed to be worked on collaboratively with the fans, outside investors and it means we still control the Club. We can all have a say in that and get involved with it (or choose not to be); that excites me far, far more than Erik taking the reigns and, for example, spending £100k on an app, which a significant number of football media professionals have already called into question. Personally, I would remember what the our Outgoing Chairman (who is pushing so vehemently for this) said about the club in January: Quote "We are not desperate for money, we are financially stable," he said. "We have enough money to see us through this season, next and maybe a bit the next. Why the need to rush this through, then, when there are some pretty spectacular issues still needing clarified, per @David's posts? Edit: also, just to add. The fact the Well Society had to produce the plan they did in all of this, shows just how badly the outgoing chairman has done his job over the last 3-5 years. I mentioned this before, but he spoke about "selling our story" to Netflix/Amazon at every AGM over that period and did nothing about it. Why? Because things were ticking along fine. We'd sold Moult, Turnbull, Scott, Heneghan, Kipre and others, which basically meant we were secure. We barely did any strategic thinking/projects over a significant period of time because everything was going fine and we lost a (talented, if somewhat controversial at times) Headr of Comms and then a really committed CEO to have them replaced by... no-one because the position was canned and then no-one for over a year because the candidates they interviewed all rejected the job, then they just didn't bother restarting the recruitment. We've hit the point where he now wants to leave his position and all of a sudden we're needing investment and it needs to be done NOW... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 3 minutes ago, David said: Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment. Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder." According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares. However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business. More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments. This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived. If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured. So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society. This for me is where the real risk lies for the club (and us as supporters). Much has been spoken about the pro's and con's of both plans. In a perfect world we could negotiate a deal where the best elements of both plans could be incorporated and a collegiate approach found to the running of the club. However, thats not where we are. The current deal gives all the power and control to Wild Sheep Sports whilst they bear none of the risk. All of the risk falls on the Well Society (ie the supporters). Thats why this is a bad deal. Thats why it needs to be voted down. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mccus28 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 8 minutes ago, David said: Let's set aside all the grand projections and plans for AI, investment, and the rest for a moment. Focus on the fine print of Barmack's deal. There are two crucial points. First, Barmack has made a specific statement: "we are willing to place covenants against further share purchases by Erik and Courtney Barmack, as we wish to remain a minority shareholder." According to this, neither Erik nor Courtney Barmack will directly purchase more shares. However, this doesn't prevent them from acquiring shares indirectly through a shell company or a third party, a common practice in business. More importantly, there's significant confusion about the penalties for the Well Society if they fail to make the agreed payments. Barmack has implied that the penalty will involve "some further reduction in debt," meaning using the society’s loan to the club to offset missed payments. This loan is secured against the stadium. As long as the club owes the Society £868,000, it does not have direct control over the stadium or the ground it sits on. For the club (i.e., the Barmacks) to gain control of the stadium, the loan must be paid off, forgiven, or waived. If Barmack's deal is accepted, half of that loan is immediately removed. If the Society fails to make the agreed payments, the remaining loan will be removed, and the stadium will no longer be secured. So, forget about the other plans and AI talk for now. The real issues are the share purchase conditions and the loan the club owes the Society. Im not sure why you're trying to convince me with these posts, im not particularly in favour of EB, I think too much remains unanswered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mccus28 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, joewarkfanclub said: This for me is where the real risk lies for the club (and us as supporters). Much has been spoken about the pro's and con's of both plans. In a perfect world we could negotiate a deal where the best elements of both plans could be incorporated and a collegiate approach found to the running of the club. However, thats not where we are. The current deal gives all the power and control to Wild Sheep Sports whilst they bear none of the risk. All of the risk falls on the Well Society (ie the supporters). Thats why this is a bad deal. Thats why it needs to be voted down. This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, Mccus28 said: But to suggest that your fellow supporter is stupid if they have a different opinion on the deal is quite cringeworthy and says more about you. 56 minutes ago, weeyin said: Agreed. If you want to persuade people to join your camp, calling them "stupid" or "gullible" is not the approach to take. I’m sorry if some of you feel that way, although note that I’ve not directed my ‘stupid’ or ‘gullible’ etc comments at any individual fan. However, I stand by my view and I will always call a spade a spade when I see one. This is emotive; our Club is at stake yet some people (see social media) either cannot or refuse to see the obvious. They are allowing the well-presented facts of the deal to be obscured by their opinions. We all want what's best for the Club and, to me and many others here, the facts of the deal are not the best for the Club. It's an obscene proposal. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Mccus28 said: This That mean you've decided, then? 👀 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Mccus28 said: Im not sure why you're trying to convince me with these posts, im not particularly in favour of EB, I think too much remains unanswered I'm not just trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince everyone. Also, you don't like the Well Society plan? Fine. We can always keep looking to source new investors. There may be others out there. It's not a case of refusing to work with Barmack means a cast-iron pledge that we ramain fan-owned for eternity. If another group or individual comes along with a plan for investment we can always look at it. But once we sell half the club, that's it. There's no more chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mccus28 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 10 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: That mean you've decided, then? 👀 🤣 Nope, but i do think its a very reasoned post unlike some on here. Im probably leaning toward the WS but still remain unconvinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 5 minutes ago, Mccus28 said: Nope, but i do think its a very reasoned post unlike some on here. Im probably leaning toward the WS but still remain unconvinced. I dont think you necessarily need to lean to or even support the Well Society or their plan. This vote is purely on the Wild Sheep proposal. I just posted this on P&B........ "It has become increasingly obvious throughout this fiasco that the "real barrier" to succesful fan ownership of Motherwell FC has been the current Executive Board. I had wrongly assumed in the past that as experienced individuals/business people, they actually knew what they were doing. It seems I was very naiive/wrong in that regard. We need to vote this deal down. Vote in a new Executive Board. Re-visit assess any potential outward investment proposals. I think we would all accept that outward investment in the club would safeguard the clubs future and would be welcome. However, accepting this deal in its current form would be madness." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfc Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 Barmack got absolutely schooled over on p&b then did a runner when he couldn't answer any of the questions put to him,he definitely isn't what we're needing or looking for.the society has came up with a straightforward plan and that's exactly what a club like ours needs and not some pie in the sky bullshit from a fantasist.the sooner this is all by with the better and we don't need to hear the names barmack and mcmahon the better we will all be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mootherwell86 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 If you’re voting for that deal then you are stupid and you are gullible. Also, you lack any basic reading comprehension skills. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 35 minutes ago, wellfan said: I’m sorry if some of you feel that way, although note that I’ve not directed my ‘stupid’ or ‘gullible’ etc comments at any individual fan. However, I stand by my view and I will always call a spade a spade when I see one. Agreed. If you ignore the Brexit vote, the rise of right wing extremists in France and Donald Trump winning the Presidency, when has calling people with opposing views "gullible" or "stupid" done any harm? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tottenmfc Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 14 minutes ago, weeyin said: Agreed. If you ignore the Brexit vote, the rise of right wing extremists in France and Donald Trump winning the Presidency, when has calling people with opposing views "gullible" or "stupid" done any harm? Going off-track a bit here, but gullible stupid people caused these things by being gullible and stupid. People pointing this out as opposed to trying to reason with them makes no difference whatsoever. They only believe their gullible stupid echo chamber and social media has only made this 1000x worse than it was previously. I'm not sure this applies to the MFC vote situation quite so much but there are definitely a fair few piping up on social media who fall into this category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 See the last day has me worried. Already there is a definite split in the support that is in danger of becoming acrimonious (if it isn't already) which will do us no favours at all down the line. Thankfully it's in the main respectful on here and P&B but the signs are there on other platforms that this could turn really nasty. At the end of the day it's down to who you trust most with the future of our club and I know who that is for me but I totally respect the fact that others might not agree including some of my close 'Well supporting friends (not many I might add) I will however do my best to bring them round to my way of thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texanwellfan Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 Wonder how many of the fans voicing their opinion on Line actually get a vote as a WS member or shareholder? Obviously the key one is the WS voters since that will decide accept or not. Not being a WS or shareholder I won’t get a vote but I have been following the discussion on here. I can honestly say I approached this with an open mind and have came to the conclusion that this is not a good investment offer for MFC. On several occasions various posts have simplified things to help people understand what’s on offer and implications. I hope something along those lines has been given to each WS member with a recommendation/reasoning as to why it should be rejected. For me there’s a few reasons a couple of which are below. not a large enough investment requiring the WS to deplete/invest its funds at the risk of basically killing the WS very little risk at stake for Barmack. MFC future existence at stake Now, if EB was to guarantee in a legal document that, if he decides to sever ties with MFC, he would leave the club and WS in a better or same financial situation then it might be worth a shot but I’m pretty sure he’s not going to do that plus it might be very complex to implement/execute such a condition. So as the French used to say “NON” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 Gavin McCafferty on Twitter Quote Absolutely no mention of the fact that the deal would allow Wild Sheep to decide strategy/financial decisions in conjunction with the two club executives and only be obliged to present/discuss them with the Well Society reps on the board. Not much of a partnership Feeley told us the other night that we had no need to worry about this as Caldwell and Lindsay are now "Motherwell men" who could be trusted 100% despite the fact they have already been siding with Barmack over the majority shareholder. The guy is completely deluded. When asked what happens if they leave and are replaced then it was another thing that "we'll deal with that when get to it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 47 minutes ago, steelboy said: Gavin McCafferty on Twitter Feeley told us the other night that we had no need to worry about this as Caldwell and Lindsay are now "Motherwell men" who could be trusted 100% despite the fact they have already been siding with Barmack over the majority shareholder. The guy is completely deluded. When asked what happens if they leave and are replaced then it was another thing that "we'll deal with that when get to it". Tom Feely's professional bio needed a wee update An avid Motherwell supporter, Tom is one of the founding board members of the Well Society. The main purpose of the Society is to acquire a controlling share in Motherwell Football Club on behalf of its members and the wider community. As a Director and Secretary, Tom is actively involved in working with the Club SHAFTING THE WELL SOCIETY, fans and local businesses to increase DECREASE membership and generate LOSE income to eventually allow the fans to own their own LOSE THEIR club! https://feelyaccountants.co.uk/meet-the-team/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casagolda Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 From Erik's own figures there is a £1.3m shortfall over the first 2 years of the deal. Which is the exact time he will realise that he knows nothing about Scottish football and will try and get his money back from the Well Society. Erik gets to mess around for free for 2 years and all it will cost us is at least £2m. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 Another thing worth considering is that much of what Wild Sheep Sports is offering can be achieved under the new Well Society proposal. The Well Society can secure the clubs financial independence by diversifying and creating dependable revenue streams. This involves forging strategic partnerships with businesses (both local and international) that align with the club’s goals, such as technology firms, health tech companies, and local enterprises. These collaborations will fund infrastructure enhancements, initiate new revenue-generating projects, and ensure the club's financial health, all while maintaining fan ownership. Crafting a robust content and media strategy to unlock additional commercial opportunities isn't rocket science, and is well within the Well Society’s capabilities. The Society can outline a detailed media plan that includes producing a docuseries, enriching online content, and partnering with media outlets to extend the club’s reach. These initiatives will generate new revenue streams and build a larger, more engaged fan base. The only difference is that the Society's plan would incentivise any potential partner to make a success of the docuseries, because if they don't do a good job, they won't get paid at the end. Another strategic area the Well Society can address independently is improving operational systems. By integrating season ticket sales, online marketing, e-commerce, and Well Society memberships into a unified, updated database, the Society can streamline operations and enhance membership accessibility. This integration will boost efficiency and enable more targeted marketing and engagement efforts. Investing in community and youth initiatives is a cornerstone of the Well Society's strategic plan that Barmack simply cannot replicate. The Society can cultivate a sustainable talent pipeline and reinforce the club’s role as a community pillar by enhancing existing community programmes and launching new initiatives centred on health, education, and football training. These efforts will strengthen community ties and foster long-term loyalty. Central to the Well Society's philosophy is maintaining the fan ownership model. The Society can ensure that fan ownership remains at the heart of the club’s governance by promoting transparency, accountability, and community involvement. This approach will preserve the club’s values and traditions while steering its future success. The Well Society can also manage the enhancement of the club’s infrastructure, such as modernising Fir Park and improving training facilities. By prioritising these projects and securing funding through strategic partnerships and community support, the Society can significantly elevate the club’s operational capabilities and overall fan experience. Additionally, the Well Society can independently pursue commercial partnerships and sponsorships, which includes opportunities for stadium naming rights and integrated sponsorship deals with partners. The only difference is that such deals will be struck based upon the viewpoints and interests of the wider fanbase and not just the aims of one group. Basically, the Well Society can independently execute many elements of the Wild Sheep Sports plan. By focusing on financial independence, global presence, media strategy, operational improvements, community engagement, and technological innovation, the Well Society can drive Motherwell FC's long-term success while keeping fan ownership at its core. There's absolutely nothing in the Wild Sheep sports offer that warrants what they're asking for in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 3 minutes ago, Casagolda said: From Erik's own figures there is a £1.3m shortfall over the first 2 years of the deal. It'll be the money the club have sitting in the bank. It's pretty obvious that he wants to use the club and funds from the Society and the club to develop and test marketing tools. Is that we want for the future of our club, a focus on marketing, developing AI and global branding? The entire situation is absurd. Roll on the 23rd of July so we can get back to reality and focusing on our core business and improving as a team and a community club. 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.