David Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 43 minutes ago, Onthefringes said: Tongue was firmly in cheek. Even the offer of a Joe McBride with Mrs Barmack won’t see me part. It’s never been about investment for me as I’m sure it is for most. Glad to hear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 Out of curiosity how many Ordinary Shares to Messrs Dickie and McMahon currently hold? Enough to make a difference if transferred? I understand Companies have to provide an up to date list of Shareholders to Companies House every three years or so as a minimum. Last return I found listed for Motherwell FC was dated 2015. They also provided details in earlier years but I could find nothing after 2015? Maybe Shareholder details are reported differently nowadays? In the 2015 return William Dickie (Father of Douglas?) was recorded as holding 10,000 Ord Shares so possibly they will still held by his family/son. If so, I think they represent around 3% of the total Shares currently on issue. So significant I suggest. And they could carry the option to purchase additional shares under the Barmack proposal. Les H was also on the list at that time but no doubt he will not be listed on any up to date Register. Also listed in 2015 are a Douglas Dickie and a James McMahon but with only 12 and 10 shares respectively. Up to date details might be revealing. From the names listed, I think there are a good few who contribute here and on P&B. Anybody who wants a read type " Motherwell Football Register of Shareholders" in Google and click on the top item. Some other documents in there and on associated pages were a tad more interesting than the Euros. The early game anyway. Page 3 for the last shareholder return I could see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 42 minutes ago, wellup83 said: I think I heard him a while ago say he'd rather not go into it on radio. He'll have a few quid invested in the club so I imagine he'll keep his cards close to his chest. I think it's more like he's hoping to get his coupon on a docuseries but he's not got the balls to come out against fan ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 22 minutes ago, steelboy said: I think it's more like he's hoping to get his coupon on a docuseries but he's not got the balls to come out against fan ownership. Not sure about the docuseries part, but I’d always expect our well known fans to at least give their opinion on something as serious as this, and if not, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 17 minutes ago, Tamwell said: Not sure about the docuseries part, but I’d always expect our well known fans to at least give their opinion on something as serious as this, and if not, why not? I doubt he's allowed to give his opinion on air. Who are our other well known fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 6 minutes ago, bobbybingo said: I doubt he's allowed to give his opinion on air. Who are our other well known fans? Why would he not be allowed to give his opinion on air? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, bobbybingo said: I doubt he's allowed to give his opinion on air. Who are our other well known fans? Graeme McGarry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yosemite sam Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 When we have to near enough match what wild sheep invest over the period and go from 71% ownership to 50.1%, and think thats a good idea is in my opinion not thinking straight. While we would at that point in time have a majority shareholding, it doesn't take much to turn that into 49.9%. If we are investing as much as Wild Sheep, we should be maintaining our shareholding, not reducing it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, yosemite sam said: When we have to near enough match what wild sheep invest over the period and go from 71% ownership to 50.1%, and think thats a good idea is in my opinion not thinking straight. While we would at that point in time have a majority shareholding, it doesn't take much to turn that into 49.9%. If we are investing as much as Wild Sheep, we should be maintaining our shareholding, not reducing it. Exactly. We have the shares. If he wants them, then buy them or at least invest money into the club at a level it makes a difference and we reduce our shareholding accordingly. This proposal that we should match his investment to lose 20% of our shareholding is for the birds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 As a hypothetical, what will you do if the Wild Sheep proposal is voted through? At this point, I’m feeling confident that it won’t be but concerned by some of the outliers on Facebook etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 8 hours ago, Tamwell said: As a hypothetical, what will you do if the Wild Sheep proposal is voted through? At this point, I’m feeling confident that it won’t be but concerned by some of the outliers on Facebook etc. I've not really been following it, but in what way are you concerned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 8 hours ago, Tamwell said: As a hypothetical, what will you do if the Wild Sheep proposal is voted through? At this point, I’m feeling confident that it won’t be but concerned by some of the outliers on Facebook etc. 2 choices. I either go and support my wee team and stop my DD to the WS in protest or I accept the democratic vote and get behind the team, increase my DD and hope that everything EB promises comes to fruition. Probably the 2nd as I couldn't walk away after 50 odd years of supporting my team but a lot of fans maybe would. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 5 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: I've not really been following it, but in what way are you concerned? The discussion on Facebook has a completely different narrative to the one we’re seeing on here and on P&B. Many people seem to favour the deal, I’m concerned that, outside of our wee bubble, there is positivity towards something that could critically damage our club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron_Mcd Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 13 minutes ago, santheman said: 2 choices. I either go and support my wee team and stop my DD to the WS in protest or I accept the democratic vote and get behind the team, increase my DD and hope that everything EB promises comes to fruition. Probably the 2nd as I couldn't walk away after 50 odd years of supporting my team but a lot of fans maybe would. I don't think I could ever walk away but could I genuinely justify paying my DD when it's going straight to the Barmack's vanity projects? I'm then essentially just funding his plaything, it just becomes a voluntary increase on my season ticket price. I'd cancel my DD and based on comments over on P&B I'm certainly not alone in that belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 27 minutes ago, santheman said: 2 choices. I either go and support my wee team and stop my DD to the WS in protest or I accept the democratic vote and get behind the team, increase my DD and hope that everything EB promises comes to fruition. Probably the 2nd as I couldn't walk away after 50 odd years of supporting my team but a lot of fans maybe would. I think I'm somewhere in between you and @Cameron_Mcd; I'd probably keep my DD going for the first 2 years but review it every 6 months or so against Erik's performance. As much as I don't want the WS to essentially fund his projects, if things don't go well the money needed to sort the buyback out and the guarantee the Club going forward per the outgoing chairman's chat at the AGM is a going to be a substantial challenge. Equally, the really snide bastard in me thinks the people that vote for this should be the ones sorting the mess out if it happens, but that's not really how it works. If it works I'll hold my hands up and admit I as wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 All the hard work going forward will be for the WS, as irrespective of the result of the vote it has to seriously up its game to respond to a yes or no vote if they have any hope of making true fan ownership work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 12 hours ago, Tamwell said: Why would he not be allowed to give his opinion on air? If he's a shareholder (if), potential conflict of interest? Maybe he could but chose not to, which is his right. Would you be happy for him to very publicly back a yes or no vote if it differed from your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 10 minutes ago, Spiderpig said: All the hard work going forward will be for the WS, as irrespective of the result of the vote it has to seriously up its game to respond to a yes or no vote if they have any hope of making true fan ownership work. I think this is absolutely true. We all know a yes vote will lead to a significant change in the WS almost immediately; there will be one person on the board as a result of resignations and the whole thing will need to be rebuilt. That could take the first 3/6/9/12* months of Barmack's reign. I would also hazard a guess that people willing to fill the spaces on the board will (in the majority, anyway) be from one "camp" of the vote, which could then lead to a nodding through of a lot of Erik's ideas without much of a challenge to them. *Delete as appropriate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 1 hour ago, Tamwell said: The discussion on Facebook has a completely different narrative to the one we’re seeing on here and on P&B. Many people seem to favour the deal, I’m concerned that, outside of our wee bubble, there is positivity towards something that could critically damage our club. Going by the conversations I've had on Facebook, most of those shouting for the deal to go through are neither Well Society members nor shareholders. They truly believe the Society's been running the club for years and it's getting the blame for everything the Executive Board has/hasn't done. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 1 hour ago, Tamwell said: The discussion on Facebook has a completely different narrative to the one we’re seeing on here and on P&B. Many people seem to favour the deal, I’m concerned that, outside of our wee bubble, there is positivity towards something that could critically damage our club. I'm fairly relaxed about contrary opinions. On balance, Its probably a good thing. I can't speak for the new Society Board, but suspect they'd agree. I am however bit concerned at how polarised the discussion has been. Its become an echo chamber, especially on P & B, and thats unhealthy. I'm always keen to listen to other's arguments, if they're contrary to mine. Its important to understand why they think as they do and not because they're "morons or idiots". They may have genuine concerns that haven't been addressed or through poor communications. It also helps to flush and tease out weaknesses in our own arguments and plans. It would be soul destroying for the Society Board to achieve a 100% No vote and few comments on its newly launched strategy, those which are received, being "Fine or I agree". It will want to encourage engagement and flush out weaknesses in its strategy and to receive constructive criticism. It will want, too, to understand the concerns of non members in order to encourage them to join. We should be talking to fans, not talking at them. My biggest concern, is dividing and splitting the fans; that would be catastrophically disastrous. We have to keep the debate respectful. Not getting at you by the way Tam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 1 minute ago, Kmcalpin said: I'm fairly relaxed about contrary opinions. On balance, Its probably a good thing. I can't speak for the new Society Board, but suspect they'd agree. I am however bit concerned at how polarised the discussion has been. Its become an echo chamber, especially on P & B, and thats unhealthy. I'm always keen to listen to other's arguments, if they're contrary to mine. Its important to understand why they think as they do and not because they're "morons or idiots". They may have genuine concerns that haven't been addressed or through poor communications. It also helps to flush and tease out weaknesses in our own arguments and plans. It would be soul destroying for the Society Board to achieve a 100% No vote and few comments on its newly launched strategy, those which are received, being "Fine or I agree". It will want to encourage engagement and flush out weaknesses in its strategy and to receive constructive criticism. It will want, too, to understand the concerns of non members in order to encourage them to join. We should be talking to fans, not talking at them. My biggest concern, is dividing and splitting the fans; that would be catastrophically disastrous. We have to keep the debate respectful. Not getting at you by the way Tam. 100% this. As you say here and P&B are pretty much on the same page so while it's good to have a healthy discussion, we're already preaching to the converted. It's X and FB where we need to win the battle by persuasion and encouragement to ask those with a different opinion to yours to listen to both sides of the argument. I've had a modicum of success on that but its frightening to realise just how ill informed some of our fans are about how the club is actually run on a day to day basis and the difference between the Executive Board and the WS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 13 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: My biggest concern, is dividing and splitting the fans; that would be catastrophically disastrous. We have to keep the debate respectful. Unfortunately, it seems that McMahon has already set that train in motion, and the blame for any disaster will be on him, not the fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Shots fired! https://thewellsociety.uk 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motherwellfc1991 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Genuine questions looking for some factual answers not hear say. I don’t know the answers hence asking given some stuff I’ve seen raised on social media 1. How much funds have the well society to date passed to the club? Roughly ?- as a loan ? 2. Why did the society require to pass over these funds - ie - player signing , lack of revenue etc etc 3. Who was the chairman and ceo when the majority of these funds changed hands from society to club as a ‘loan’ 4. when this happened were said chairman and ceo sitting on both the society and executive boards 5. were the remainder of the society board members asked to vote on the money parting from the society to the club If anyone knows the answers then I’ll have a better idea of my choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 11 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said: Genuine questions looking for some factual answers not hear say. I don’t know the answers hence asking given some stuff I’ve seen raised on social media 1. How much funds have the well society to date passed to the club? Roughly ?- as a loan ? 2. Why did the society require to pass over these funds - ie - player signing , lack of revenue etc etc 3. Who was the chairman and ceo when the majority of these funds changed hands from society to club as a ‘loan’ 4. when this happened were said chairman and ceo sitting on both the society and executive boards 5. were the remainder of the society board members asked to vote on the money parting from the society to the club If anyone knows the answers then I’ll have a better idea of my choice 1. About 850k, I think. Can't answer the rest for certain but I'm sure others can. 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.