joewarkfanclub Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 20 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 Emailing the Society is probably your best bet to get full and accurate answers to all those questions in particular timelines. members@thewellsociety.uk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motherwellfc1991 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Cheers thanks That’s around the figure I been told but didn’t know if it was factual or not I’m asking myself now - given the club is on a sound financial footing ( according to the present chairman)and we’ve raked in decent money on transfers over the past few years why the need to borrow from the society - something isn’t adding up - unless it was particular projects etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 4 minutes ago, Motherwellfc1991 said: Cheers thanks That’s around the figure I been told but didn’t know if it was factual or not I’m asking myself now - given the club is on a sound financial footing ( according to the present chairman)and we’ve raked in decent money on transfers over the past few years why the need to borrow from the society - something isn’t adding up - unless it was particular projects etc Aye I totally understand that. Definitely email the society as suggested for full answers. There will be up to date figures in the latest accounts on Companies House for the WS loan as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Everyone involved in this investment proposal needs to just admit that they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (deliberately or accidentally) and stop this charade. Pursuing it, on these terms and with those involved, will surely only cause more damage to a community-focused club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 7 minutes ago, wellfan said: Everyone involved in this investment proposal needs to just admit that they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (deliberately or accidentally) and stop this charade. Pursuing it, on these terms and with those involved, will surely only cause more damage to a community-focused club. Nah. We'll be laughing on our way to the bank when our #GlobalCommunityClub is a market leader in Tuvalu. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted July 7 Author Report Share Posted July 7 1 hour ago, santheman said: 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. Thats a constructive approach. In terms of ignorance about the way the club is run, "we" could take 2 approaches. The first is to blame the fans who don't understand,but thats not helpful. The second is to take a more constructive approach. The term "Executive Board", will mean little to many - Executive Board of what? So that's a communication issue. Why not rename it "Club Board"? Not a massive or costly change but one which might help some fans to understand better. Just an example of what might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 2 hours 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 My understanding of the answers to a few of those questions. Anyone know any different please correct. I am not close to anyone on either the old or new Society Board so my comments are based on responses to E-Mails and from having joined the Society at the outset and attended several presentations. Apologies if the response is lengthy but the questions are worthy of a detailed reply. 1. Around £2m total provided to date of which £850k was by way of Loan. Originally all funding was to be Loan only (secured by a Standard Security over Fir Park) but that model was changed at the request of the Club Board supported by certain Members of the then Society Board. I believe around £1.2m of that £2m was passed across never to be returned. Les Hutchison was integral to the 'donation' as opposed to the 'loaning' of monies. Part of his Agreement which drained Society monies. Jim McMahon chose to continue a similar funding model, again supported by some Society Board Members. Barmack wishes to do the same. No doubt someone can confirm the average annual income of the Society. Multiply that by the number of years the Society has existed and you will see why I am talking in millions rather than thousands. Another simple measure is to confirm how much in totql the Society has collected over the years and compare that to the total of current Bank Balance and outstanding Loan. Less expenses, they should match but I guarantee there is a sizeable shortfall. Donations made over the years. The reasoning for Loans only and a Charge over Fir Park was that if the Club were to collapse, all monies due to the Society were protected and would receive repayment priority upon a Club Administration or Liquidation. Those repaid loans providing a basis for the formation of a new Club. Starting over if you like. Worst case scenario but a valid consideration. There was no real intention for the Loans to be repaid, so as not to affect Club cash flow. Plus the Security over Fir Park offered other protections of the major Club asset. 2/5. Funds were originally to be moved across to cover short term funding gaps covering a range of expenditure relating to core Club activities and Community engagement. Society funds were not to be regarded as a piggy bank to be raided on a regular basis. In that way Society funds would gradually build up to a sizeable reserve. Millions was the hope.. In more recent times the Club forwarded a funding request to the Society and the Society Board would assess and decide whether to provide the funds. But not always on a Loan basis for some reason. When I asked for what purposes those funds were provided I was told "Projects". Pretty vague to be honest. Members were not asked for their agreement to the change in the manner funds were provided. When changes to the Society Board took place last year, driven by the new Appointees, it was decided that the Society should return as close as possible to the original funding concept. To build up Society assets. Also far more scrutiny was made of funding requests from the Club, and not all were passed as a matter of course. That does not appear to have been received well at Exec Board level and two Society Board members who seemed more aligned to the Exec Board have stood down, those Members having supported the Wild Sheep proposal against the majority view of the Society Board. My personal view based on responses I have had over the years is that a complacent Exec Board, under it's two most recent Chairmen, sidelined the Society and treated Society monies as the Club's own. To be utilised for whatever purpose and whenever they decided. Supported by some but not all Society Board members. Basically, It was easier to turn to the Society for finance as opposed to seeking solutions elsewhere or addressing inefficiencies within the Club. The new Society Board have addressed that situation, seeking to be respected as majority share holders and exercising more control over the monies provided by Society members. The Barmack proposal will utilise all Society funds over time and eventually lead to the Loan being repaid/written off. Almost certainly leaving the Society with no assets. Oh and with a much reduced shareholding and with little power in the Exec Boardroom. With no Loan in existence, the Security over Fir Park could be cancelled leaving Fir Park free to be used by a Barmack led Board as Security for outside Loans to fund his various projects. There is a recognised funding shortfall in his latest plan. Why is that? As I said, my take on things. Folk closer to the situation please confirm or disprove my understanding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy08exp197ro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 6 minutes ago, Spiderpig said: From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cy08exp197ro That's good we are getting more mainstream coverage. The figures in the document are back of a fag paper nonsense. Spending a fortune on an App for a support of our size is crazy and as I have said before you can bet all the money from this spending will end up back in California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 1 minute ago, steelboy said: That's good we are getting more mainstream coverage. The figures in the document are back of a fag paper nonsense. Spending a fortune on an App for a support of our size is crazy and as I have said before you can bet all the money from this spending will end up back in California. No mention of them using what are known to be inaccurate figures, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 5 hours 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. There's always the option of supporting the team, but now treating it like any other fan of a team with a "millionaire" owner. You pay for your ticket, for your merchandise or whatever, and you leave the rest of the financial outlay to the people with the money. That's what I'll be doing. I won't be funding the Barmack's side project. 4 hours 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 have a feeling that the Well Society moving forward, if the proposal from Barmack is accepted, will need a total rehaul. The current board, and the people who helped put together the new proposal, likely won't be involved. Let's hope that there's some savvy, committed individuals among the Facebook/X ranks who are ready to step up and get involved if they get what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 2 hours ago, wellfan said: Everyone involved in this investment proposal needs to just admit that they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (deliberately or accidentally) and stop this charade. Pursuing it, on these terms and with those involved, will surely only cause more damage to a community-focused club. Hopefully it'll be kicked out in two weeks and we can all stick this farce in the memory hole with Covid lockdowns and McGhee's second spell at the club. What's very telling is that this started out with a very expensive PR campaign from a prestigious Edinburgh firm and talk about Hollywood and Netflix but as soon as we got to a point where the fans were able to scrutinise the deal it all crumbled. McMahon and Barmack have embarrassed themselves with the grudgingly revised offer and the last minute shitty business plan. It's all been bluster from them while the Well Society have stood strong due to commitment to the core values of being a fan owned community club. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Another "Motherwell man" with the Club's best interests at heart...or a delusional former Director encouraging others to sell the Club and Well Society up the river? https://x.com/AndrewWilson/status/1809938150984175995 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Wilson is an investment banker so it's not a surprise he is in favour of this. When he did the independence economic plan for the SNP in 2017 it was austerity on steroids, he's not exactly a man of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbybingo Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 1 hour ago, wellfan said: Another "Motherwell man" with the Club's best interests at heart...or a delusional former Director encouraging others to sell the Club and Well Society up the river? https://x.com/AndrewWilson/status/1809938150984175995 I'd love to hear him explain how we 'nourish the Society' by signing up to have it bled dry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wispy Flossy Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Post amended as issue resolved in a timely matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 4 hours ago, dennyc said: My understanding of the answers to a few of those questions. Anyone know any different please correct. I am not close to anyone on either the old or new Society Board so my comments are based on responses to E-Mails and from having joined the Society at the outset and attended several presentations. Apologies if the response is lengthy but the questions are worthy of a detailed reply. 1. Around £2m total provided to date of which £850k was by way of Loan. Originally all funding was to be Loan only (secured by a Standard Security over Fir Park) but that model was changed at the request of the Club Board supported by certain Members of the then Society Board. I believe around £1.2m of that £2m was passed across never to be returned. Les Hutchison was integral to the 'donation' as opposed to the 'loaning' of monies. Part of his Agreement which drained Society monies. Jim McMahon chose to continue a similar funding model, again supported by some Society Board Members. Barmack wishes to do the same. No doubt someone can confirm the average annual income of the Society. Multiply that by the number of years the Society has existed and you will see why I am talking in millions rather than thousands. Another simple measure is to confirm how much in totql the Society has collected over the years and compare that to the total of current Bank Balance and outstanding Loan. Less expenses, they should match but I guarantee there is a sizeable shortfall. Donations made over the years. The reasoning for Loans only and a Charge over Fir Park was that if the Club were to collapse, all monies due to the Society were protected and would receive repayment priority upon a Club Administration or Liquidation. Those repaid loans providing a basis for the formation of a new Club. Starting over if you like. Worst case scenario but a valid consideration. There was no real intention for the Loans to be repaid, so as not to affect Club cash flow. Plus the Security over Fir Park offered other protections of the major Club asset. 2/5. Funds were originally to be moved across to cover short term funding gaps covering a range of expenditure relating to core Club activities and Community engagement. Society funds were not to be regarded as a piggy bank to be raided on a regular basis. In that way Society funds would gradually build up to a sizeable reserve. Millions was the hope.. In more recent times the Club forwarded a funding request to the Society and the Society Board would assess and decide whether to provide the funds. But not always on a Loan basis for some reason. When I asked for what purposes those funds were provided I was told "Projects". Pretty vague to be honest. Members were not asked for their agreement to the change in the manner funds were provided. When changes to the Society Board took place last year, driven by the new Appointees, it was decided that the Society should return as close as possible to the original funding concept. To build up Society assets. Also far more scrutiny was made of funding requests from the Club, and not all were passed as a matter of course. That does not appear to have been received well at Exec Board level and two Society Board members who seemed more aligned to the Exec Board have stood down, those Members having supported the Wild Sheep proposal against the majority view of the Society Board. My personal view based on responses I have had over the years is that a complacent Exec Board, under it's two most recent Chairmen, sidelined the Society and treated Society monies as the Club's own. To be utilised for whatever purpose and whenever they decided. Supported by some but not all Society Board members. Basically, It was easier to turn to the Society for finance as opposed to seeking solutions elsewhere or addressing inefficiencies within the Club. The new Society Board have addressed that situation, seeking to be respected as majority share holders and exercising more control over the monies provided by Society members. The Barmack proposal will utilise all Society funds over time and eventually lead to the Loan being repaid/written off. Almost certainly leaving the Society with no assets. Oh and with a much reduced shareholding and with little power in the Exec Boardroom. With no Loan in existence, the Security over Fir Park could be cancelled leaving Fir Park free to be used by a Barmack led Board as Security for outside Loans to fund his various projects. There is a recognised funding shortfall in his latest plan. Why is that? As I said, my take on things. Folk closer to the situation please confirm or disprove my understanding. Thats pretty close to my understanding of the situation. Hopefully others can confirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 8 minutes ago, Big Wispy Flossy said: I have received paperwork from the club regarding the upcoming vote, but still to receive any information from the well society despite chasing it up twice. Given what’s at stake here, it’s incredibly poor customer service. for the record, I intend to vote against EB’s proposal. However, the well society need to be better on the administration side (the easy part) as if they can’t get that right now they have little hope of providing a viable alternative and growing income / fanbase in future. My understanding is that the stuff from the Well Society will come out tomorrow in one email from the company who are carrying out the vote on their behalf. Thats why they had to make a statement on the Barmack proposal as it was submitted too late to be included in the list of documents. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Blues Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 19 minutes ago, Big Wispy Flossy said: I have received paperwork from the club regarding the upcoming vote, but still to receive any information from the well society despite chasing it up twice. Given what’s at stake here, it’s incredibly poor customer service. for the record, I intend to vote against EB’s proposal. However, the well society need to be better on the administration side (the easy part) as if they can’t get that right now they have little hope of providing a viable alternative and growing income / fanbase in future. The Society have previously stated that their "pack" would be made available for voting opening on Monday 8th July. As @joewarkfanclub says above, this will primarily be by email, from a third party. I can only assume that the club's paper-based information was sent early, to allow for the possible vagaries of the post. I certainly wouldn't go slagging off their administration based on this example, and certainly not when the other side have already made late and factually incorrect submissions to the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wispy Flossy Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 The well society previously sent out an email saying that if no one had received any communication relating to the investment then they should email them. I did and never received any response. However on the back of my post I have since been contacted by some who are involved in the society, who have endeavoured to sort for me. I most certainly appreciate their involvement in rectifying for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Blues Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 All's well that ends well, then. For anyone else still eagerly awaiting the info, this is what the Well Society email said. (Basically, if you haven't heard anything by next Thursday, 11th July, get in touch.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 https://news.stv.tv/sport/prospective-motherwell-investors-shared-inaccurate-information-from-social-media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 A few things worth bearing in mind as we all get set to vote: The vote is about accepting the Barmacks offer, NOT choosing between the Barmacks offer and the Well Society offer. If we vote against the Barmacks offer, it DOESN'T mean we have to stick with the Society plan. We can still seek other investments. Some people are not impressed with either offer. That's okay. We can reject the Barmacks offer, continue as we are, and look for new opportunities. If we vote to accept the Barmacks offer, that's final. We WON'T have another chance to bring in new investment later. We only get to sell half the club once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 7 hours ago, wellfan said: Everyone involved in this investment proposal needs to just admit that they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (deliberately or accidentally) and stop this charade. Pursuing it, on these terms and with those involved, will surely only cause more damage to a community-focused club. I said this before, way way back before it all started. Not that I could have foreseen this - but what I pointed out is that a 75 year old man leading the way is a very dangerous thing. At a certain point, they will want out. Cash in the chips and leave it all behind. Therefore his influence is deliberate in order to exit and cash in on those chips. The rest are sheep following his influence. Maybe this is the first post we agree on and a new friendship is blossoming 😘 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 I think also when defeated a lot more people will restart or up the subscription. Considering what Barmack is putting in, above needs taken into consideration. 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.