Jump to content

New Investment Options


Kmcalpin
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, santheman said:

Anyone know if all the emailed voting papers should be out today or if it will be over the course of a few days?

Not received mine yet☹️.

They did say if not received by Thursday contact them so I guess need a few day to email every member. Checked junk mail ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, santheman said:

Anyone know if all the emailed voting papers should be out today or if it will be over the course of a few days?

Not received mine yet☹️.

Got mine this morning so did my mum. Check your spam mail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to be honest with everyone and say that part of that £600,000 pre and post match entertainment budget involves me being hired by the Barmacks to take over the tannoy duty for matches, was wanting to keep schtum but fans have a right to know what they are voting for,   definitely a reason to reject offer!!! 🤪🤪

Ps. And yes.....I am joking

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, grizzlyg said:

I have to be honest with everyone and say that part of that £600,000 pre and post match entertainment budget involves me being hired by the Barmacks to take over the tannoy duty for matches, was wanting to keep schtum but fans have a right to know what they are voting for,   definitely a reason to reject offer!!! 🤪🤪

Ps. And yes.....I am joking

Like most of your jokes, we're never sure until you confirm it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A definite Reject vote just sent in from me. My concern is the group who do not engage here or on Pie and Bovril and are blinded by Hollywood and Netflix. If this offer is accepted I really fear for the future of our club.

Hopefully the articles by McCafferty and on STV and BBC web sites will enlighten a few more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sinjy said:

A definite Reject vote just sent in from me. My concern is the group who do not engage here or on Pie and Bovril and are blinded by Hollywood and Netflix. If this offer is accepted I really fear for the future of our club.

Hopefully the articles by McCafferty and on STV and BBC web sites will enlighten a few more.

There will no doubt be a lot of long standing WS members who are not active on social media or don't want to be, have not read any of the proposals from either side and have no interest in doing so, these are the ones to worry about. They will either not bother to vote, or not get a chance as their contact details are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, steelboy said:

Hopefully these types of articles will reach the broader fan base who have votes in the Society or as share holders and sway them in the right direction. It’s ridiculous to be proposing to spend several times the amount of investment. Just where is all that money going to come from? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to the lols, Jim's statement still has a reference to the Barmarks in it, after being changed everywhere else. 🤣

image.png.cbd5644d9ba99b6ee2603b8196dae1cf.png

Edited by StAndrew7
This is from the 5th of July, not yesterday. But still: lol.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Hopefully these types of articles will reach the broader fan base who have votes in the Society or as share holders and sway them in the right direction. It’s ridiculous to be proposing to spend several times the amount of investment. Just where is all that money going to come from? 

This is what really annoys me about McMahons statement yesterday. He is asking the WS to show that any investment they have lined up stays in the club. Yet under the proposal he is trying to push through, we will spend £4m in the first 3 years for a £900k investment. Im no bussinessman, but that looks like £3.1m going out of the club with no guarantee it will generate any extra revenue to justify the expense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joewarkfanclub said:

This is what really annoys me about McMahons statement yesterday. He is asking the WS to show that any investment they have lined up stays in the club. Yet under the proposal he is trying to push through, we will spend £4m in the first 3 years for a £900k investment. Im no bussinessman, but that looks like £3.1m going out of the club with no guarantee it will generate any extra revenue to justify the expense.

And all of the same questions apply to Barmark's proposal; where are the details of who will invest in his (shite) business plan, other than "celebrities", "tech bruhs in shitty chinos" and "hollywood elites"?

The level of scrutiny being put towards one proposal, absolutely has to be put to the other (and also bloody well answered). There has still be no public acknowledgement of the inaccurate figures used in the plan EB published last Thursday.

But hey; this isn't a vote for or against the WS proposal, is it? 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't expect me to say yes to a proposal that will reduce our substantial shareholding of 71% to 50.1% ( changed only because we didn't accept their first offering), while also us putting nearly as much money into the offer as Wild Sheep and giving them from day one, chairmanship of the board and another two directors for a paltry £300k.

Then after six years a small change of hands of shares, could reduce our shareholding below the 50.1% and everything would be effectively run by Wild Sheep.

My vote is in.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

For the well society vote, is it a majority of the votes cast or a majority of the registered members? 

Votes cast, just like any election/referendum.

I'm not sure what sort of required turnout there is, but I would expect it to be significantly higher than the last vote (which was in the mid 30s percentage wise, I think?) so I don't anticipate there being an issue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

This is what really annoys me about McMahons statement yesterday. He is asking the WS to show that any investment they have lined up stays in the club. Yet under the proposal he is trying to push through, we will spend £4m in the first 3 years for a £900k investment. Im no bussinessman, but that looks like £3.1m going out of the club with no guarantee it will generate any extra revenue to justify the expense.

Its taking speculate to accumulate to a whole new level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, yosemite sam said:

Please don't expect me to say yes to a proposal that will reduce our substantial shareholding of 71% to 50.1% ( changed only because we didn't accept their first offering), 

I think what sums this whole thing up is that they don't even respect us enough to give us 51%. 

The 50.1% is so obviously a way of making it as easy and cheap as possible for Barmack to eventually get majority control.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Votes cast, just like any election/referendum.

I'm not sure what sort of required turnout there is, but I would expect it to be significantly higher than the last vote (which was in the mid 30s percentage wise, I think?) so I don't anticipate there being an issue with that.

I E-Mailed the Society to confirm things and was advised that if the turnout threshold of 35% was not reached, then there will be no change. No change means the proposal from Barmack is rejected.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I E-Mailed the Society to confirm things and was advised that if the turnout threshold of 35% was not reached, then there will be no change. No change means the proposal from Barmack is rejected.

Aye, I can't see it not being met in such an emotive/important vote; but if it's not, that's good to know. Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

Aye, I can't see it not being met in such an emotive/important vote; but if it's not, that's good to know. Cheers!

Really provides a safety net if the turnout is less than last time (Unlikely as you say). But will make more of a statement if the threshold is exceeded and the majority who vote reject the offer. That leaves less scope for the Club Board to gripe about the outcome if/when they lose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing that struck me was that if the £4m outlined to be spent by Barmack is used to buy services owned by companies he either owns or has associations with, then he stands to make a healthy return on his £900k regardless if whether it generates revenue for the club or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

The other thing that struck me was that if the £4m outlined to be spent by Barmack is used to buy services owned by companies he either owns or has associations with, then he stands to make a healthy return on his £900k regardless if whether it generates revenue for the club or not.

Aside from Wild Sheep sports, which is a small media distribution company, he doesn't own anything. He's someone who's very skilled in media, and has worked as an employee at Netflix. He's not a serial entrepreneur or investor of note. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...