wellfan Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 2 minutes ago, wunderwell said: 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. Yep. I posted above that I'll likely be upping my direct debit to the WS if/once this investment nonsense is voted down. We need to put our money where our mouths are, where possible, and help. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 6 minutes ago, David said: 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. Can I add that if we reject the Wild Sheep offer, we are in no worse a position than we were before Mr and Mrs Barmack appeared on the scene. We must not lose sight of that fact. Arguably we are positively in a much better position. Not only have we not lost any regular income streams, the financial situation has instead been much improved as a direct result of new TV and Commercial deals negotiated by the League Authorities. Income which our Club Board have shrouded in mystery. Topped up by around £250k due to Kelly and Bair bench warming for their International teams. AND, if strong rumours are to be believed Theo Bair will be off in a couple of weeks bringing in a further £1m or so. AND we still have Lennon Miller. Add to that a much stronger and refocused Well Society off the field and a refreshed team on it following early transfer dealings. In short, this is not a panic situation. We have time to restructure and secure outside investment on terms which will not bring about the likely demise of the Well Society. The Society vision is a good starting point but it is not a competition between the Society vision and the Wild Sheep proposal. Despite what some would have us believe. We are voting solely on the proposal by Mr Barmack in the knowledge that other options are and will be available. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 3 minutes ago, wellfan said: Yep. I posted above that I'll likely be upping my direct debit to the WS if/once this investment nonsense is voted down. We need to put our money where our mouths are, where possible, and help. Plus 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Quote The content of the Barmack business plan has also sparked criticism. Plans include spending £600,000 on pre and post-match entertainment over the course of the investment period, almost a third of the money on offer. Spending more on pre and post match entertainment than on our starting striker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 26 minutes ago, steelboy said: Spending more on pre and post match entertainment than on our starting striker. It's a very american trend. Soccer is a day out. I don't disagree with him. I think the experience can be better. (Obviously the financial package offered is a lot of crap, taking relevant positive ideas to nurture ourselves, all good) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 19 minutes ago, wunderwell said: It's a very american trend. Soccer is a day out. I don't disagree with him. I think the experience can be better. (Obviously the financial package offered is a lot of crap, taking relevant positive ideas to nurture ourselves, all good) Some may disagree but to make things entertaining can come at no cost option. 5 mascots from each team against the goalkeeper coach etc etc Experience of a life time for those kids too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 Absolutely no issues with trying to make the matchday experience more entertaining. However, if you are going to throw £600k of the clubs money at it, you need to have a plan that shows the money spent will generate extra revenue otherwise its a bad investment. Im not sure how many extra bums on seats that kind of thing can realistically manage or how else you monetise it. But without seeing the workings behind it, I wont be buying into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambo97 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 5 hours ago, Electric Blues said: 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.) The shareholder info I have from the club says that voting closes at 12.00 noon on 22nd July, the WS voting would appear to also finish on the 22nd, it doesn't give them much time to get their voting in. When it comes to the actual WS Shareholding vote is a straight majority of WS vote gets 100% of the shareholder vote. So it doesn't matter if the vote is 50.001 - 49.999% or 100-0% the shareholding vote would be the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 7 hours ago, cambo97 said: The shareholder info I have from the club says that voting closes at 12.00 noon on 22nd July, the WS voting would appear to also finish on the 22nd, it doesn't give them much time to get their voting in. When it comes to the actual WS Shareholding vote is a straight majority of WS vote gets 100% of the shareholder vote. So it doesn't matter if the vote is 50.001 - 49.999% or 100-0% the shareholding vote would be the same? Correct; the WS shares vote as a block as a result of the vote in whatever way the majority wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted July 8 Author Report Share Posted July 8 Thats correct StAndrew7. However a very close vote would be disastrous for everyone and leave many fans unhappy. The support would be divided. Lets hope for a clear result either way. I know its very unlikely but what would happen in the event of a 50/50 evenly split vote? The worst possible scenario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 30 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: Thats correct StAndrew7. However a very close vote would be disastrous for everyone and leave many fans unhappy. The support would be divided. Lets hope for a clear result either way. I know its very unlikely but what would happen in the event of a 50/50 evenly split vote? The worst possible scenario McMahon would probably claim the casting vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 Brian McCafferty speaks out. That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 3 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Brian McCafferty speaks out. That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list. Jim would probably send a birthday card and claim it to be a Christmas card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throughthelaces Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 I decided to vote against it personally after some thought. I like the Societys plan but I do want the club to work on financial security so we’re safe in the event of relegation while actively working to avoid it. I want the well society to start acting like the custodians and have control of the club board as well. They own 70% surely they can appoint a chairman themselves. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 I've just received the investment ballot email from Civica on behalf of the Well Society. Vote to reject the offer. It's our Club. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mothman Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 Former Motherwell chairman sends stark warning over deal with American investors By Gavin McCafferty, PA July 08, 2024 at 8:56am BST Former Motherwell chairman Brian McCafferty has urged fans not to risk the financial future of the club by handing control to American TV executive Erik Barmack. The Motherwell board recommends shareholders accept a £1.95million offer from Wild Sheep Sports, a firm created by Barmack and his wife, Courtney, for a 47 per cent stake. However, the board of the Well Society, the fan-run majority shareholder, has urged its members to reject the plan in a ballot which opened on Monday morning. Their decision will decide the outcome. McCafferty, who previously chaired both the Motherwell and Well Society boards, said: “The Wild Sheep offer would put fan ownership and the financial future of Motherwell at major risk. “The revision to allow the Well Society to retain slightly more than half of the shares is largely symbolic as the deal immediately hands Wild Sheep effective control. “Although both groups will have three representatives on the board, Erik Barmack will have a casting vote as chairman and the deal stipulates that Wild Sheep will develop overall strategy in conjunction with two club executives. The Well Society is only entitled to ‘discuss’ these key decisions. “Much has been made of the independence of the two club employees on the board, but people come and go at football clubs all the time – especially if they disagree with the chairman – and Wild Sheep could appoint any replacements. So it’s unquestionably boardroom control. “There are other factors that risk fan ownership, including what happens if the Well Society misses its financial obligations to almost match the Barmacks’ investment. This remains unclear, and I’d expect many fans would stop paying subscriptions if control is handed to an overseas investor. “Fans would have no say over other investors Erik Barmack has talked about introducing and Wild Sheep could be entitled to take a share of the club’s profits after year six.” Both the Well Society and Wild Sheep unveiled business plans last week. The fan group is focused on growing support in Lanarkshire and becoming a “community anchor” while utilising “strategic partnerships”. The Barmack plan is focused on growing the global fanbase through marketing and media strategies. “I find it strange that there is a drive to rush this deal through when the club is financially stable,” said McCafferty, who brokered a takeover deal with Les Hutchison in 2015 that saw the latter avert a financial crisis for Motherwell and steer the club towards fan ownership. “The Wild Sheep plan outlines almost £4million of spending on projects inside three years – yet the Barmacks are only investing £900,000 during this period. “The nature of many of the plans, such as spending £600,000 on pre-match and post-match entertainment, casts major doubt on the financial viability of the project. There is a real chance the club would need further funding which could leave it in serious trouble or again dilute fans’ share. “The deal was always going to be a gamble. Fans would be putting their own money and the club’s finances in the hands of someone with no track record in football. By the looks of the Wild Sheep plan, it’s a massive gamble and I urge Motherwell fans to reject the offer. “The Well Society plan is a highly considered approach and I know there have been alternative financial options emerging during this process that could provide some security for the club without the risks inherent in the Wild Sheep offer. There is absolutely no need to rush into this deal.” In a statement on Friday, the Motherwell board said: “Within the Barmacks’ and the Well Society’s business plans, there are lots of interesting ideas. We welcome both. “Having studied both at length, it is our view that combining these ideas, locally and internationally, gives us the best chance of broadening our reach and appeal, and therefore generating additional revenues.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 44 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said: Brian McCafferty speaks out. That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list. That's a great statement to make today. Compare it to Wilson who had nothing substantial to say and there's surely only one way for sensible fans to vote. I've already got my Reject vote in. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raoul_Duke Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 Just had the Civica email through to vote, it went into my junk folder just to forewarn anyone that possibly thinks they haven't received it to check! Should come through from takepart@cesvotes.com I've voted to reject the Wild Sheep offer as both a Well Society member and as a shareholder, I'd urge anyone still undecided to look at how heavily weighted towards the incoming party that this 'offer' is. The 2yr buyback option for instance means the Society would be out of pocket to the tune of £1m. The Barmack's would leave with the £600k they would've put in by then?! Giving an incoming chairman casting vote and control of the board from day one on an 8% shareholding wouldn't fly in any other business and it shouldn't do here either! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Made Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 Email in and after much deliberation and back and fro (not really), I decided to accept to reject the offer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 2 minutes ago, Well-Made said: Email in and after much deliberation and back and fro (not really), I decided to accept to reject the offer. You really had me going there 🤣 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 Jim McMahon's message. I feel famous; he's even quoted me: Quote Point two, why do this now? We don’t need to. And here my words “We have enough money to see us through this season and a bit of next” have been quoted and it’s been suggested they should be “Shouted from the rooftops.” They are completely accurate and I agree they should be shouted out. Everyone involved in getting us into that position should be proud of what has been achieved over the seven years of fan ownership. But my next sentence should be included for balance. “You get the best deal when you don’t need the money – if you do need money the terms will be much less attractive.” This is an attempt to move away from season-to-season budgeting to a more sustainable basis. On 7/5/2024 at 11:32 AM, StAndrew7 said: Also, scream this from the fucking rooftops: "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, StAndrew7 said: Brian McCafferty speaks out. That's him definitely off Jim's Christmas card list. The one paragraph in this puts in a nutshell for me and I must admit I had missed it. Wild sheep outlines investment of almost £4 in 3 years of which the split is £900k from Barmack RESULTING in £3m from WS. Quite clearly if we can generate £3m we do not need Wild Sheep. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 McMahon "As has been pointed out, this is a vote on the Barmark proposal not the WS outline plan. But there is one key area where some read across is vital – new investment." Translation: This vote isn't about the Well Society plan but i'm going to make it about that anyway because I'm bitter and desperate. Talking about 'stringent safeguards' days after Barmack has published a business plan which commits to spending millions more than he is putting into the club is absurd and hypocritical. The club and Barmack's unprofessional behaviour during this process has been the biggest boost the Society could have hoped for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 38 minutes ago, Well-Made said: Email in and after much deliberation and back and fro (not really), I decided to accept to reject the offer. Hope your vote is a bit clearer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 8 Report Share Posted July 8 4 minutes ago, steelboy said: McMahon "As has been pointed out, this is a vote on the Barmark proposal not the WS outline plan. But there is one key area where some read across is vital – new investment." Translation: This vote isn't about the Well Society plan but i'm going to make it about that anyway because I'm bitter and desperate. Talking about 'stringent safeguards' days after Barmack has published a business plan which commits to spending millions more than he is putting into the club is absurd and hypocritical. The club and Barmack's unprofessional behaviour during this process has been the biggest boost the Society could have hoped for. Mate, his name's Barmark; can't you read? I think we've all been duped here and Eric Barmark is the actual investor. 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.