StAndrew7 Posted July 24 Report Share Posted July 24 3 minutes ago, wellwell91 said: Someone please correct me if I’m wrong The 3 WS board members who voted for this deal were the 3 WS members on the executive board I assume that the executive board has a financial director who advises them. Maybe they were guided by his presentation of the club’s financial position. Could be totally wrong and we’re just a Mickey Mouse outfit and don’t have a financial director. Only two WS Board members were on the Exec: Dickie and Feely. Dickie resigned as a WS Board member. The Club's Financial Director, David Lindsay, sits on the Exec Board. He was appointed at the same time as Brian Caldwell. Just now, StirlingDosser said: Not all Society members were against the proposal so to force society board members out would be wrong and sums up what was wrong with this entire debate within our support. If anything the Society board absolutely needs a range of views given how horrifically this was all managed. Agreed; a healthy board/management group is made up of a broad range of expertise, experience and views. It should be the same for the Exec Board, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 24 Report Share Posted July 24 25 minutes ago, StirlingDosser said: Not all Society members were against the proposal so to force society board members out would be wrong and sums up what was wrong with this entire debate within our support. If anything the Society board absolutely needs a range of views given how horrifically this was all managed. Of course WS Board Members are entitled to a range of views. Essential for healthy debate and I hope different viewpoints continue to be openly expressed. But can I ask you? Should those WS Board Members who represent Society members on the Exec Board seek the views of the WS Board and ultimately the fans before voting on something as important as handing control of the Club to an external investor, reducing shareholder % and writing of debts? And if they do seek guidance should they go against the majority wishes of the WS Board? My view is they should have abstained from that vote citing the need to refer to the WS Board. The Club Exec would have still carried the day 3-0 but at least the Society would not have been seen to be supporting the deal, as it must have appeared to Barmack. Dickie and Feely either did not seek the views of their own Board or chose to ignore those views. That is the issue here. Not whether they hold different opinions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted July 24 Report Share Posted July 24 33 minutes ago, StirlingDosser said: Not all Society members were against the proposal so to force society board members out would be wrong and sums up what was wrong with this entire debate within our support. If anything the Society board absolutely needs a range of views given how horrifically this was all managed. Agree the Society board should have a range of views but for me once making their recommendation for a rejection by a majority vote absolutely clear should not be free to back acceptance by another group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 24 Report Share Posted July 24 11 minutes ago, Villageman said: Agree the Society board should have a range of views but for me once making their recommendation for a rejection by a majority vote absolutely clear should not be free to back acceptance by another group. From what I understand, the Exec Board voted before the WS Board did to reject it, which I think is what @dennyc is alluding to, as well. I believe the HoT were presented to the WS Board after the Exec Board had voted on it, too. I think this was clarified by a few folk who asked Feely at the WS engagement session a few weeks ago. It does make it worse that they voted on it without discussing the views of the majority of the WS Board. They could have at least abstained. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted July 24 Report Share Posted July 24 Feeley should not be chair. We cannot have the head of the Society a bloke who doesn't believe in the purpose of the society. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StirlingDosser Posted July 25 Report Share Posted July 25 11 hours ago, dennyc said: Of course WS Board Members are entitled to a range of views. Essential for healthy debate and I hope different viewpoints continue to be openly expressed. But can I ask you? Should those WS Board Members who represent Society members on the Exec Board seek the views of the WS Board and ultimately the fans before voting on something as important as handing control of the Club to an external investor, reducing shareholder % and writing of debts? And if they do seek guidance should they go against the majority wishes of the WS Board? My view is they should have abstained from that vote citing the need to refer to the WS Board. The Club Exec would have still carried the day 3-0 but at least the Society would not have been seen to be supporting the deal, as it must have appeared to Barmack. Dickie and Feely either did not seek the views of their own Board or chose to ignore those views. That is the issue here. Not whether they hold different opinions. It is a good point. And the reality of us on this forum will have no experience of boardroom politics or how boardroom affairs are conducted. It may be that this is a learning curve for the society on how to structure and conduct its business. Perhaps some sort of constitution amendment which obliged the WS exec board members to act on the instruction on whatever the consensus is of the WS board. In relation to Dickie, I have asked the question before, why is it he is always on or around the board, like his father before he passed? If they have done something significant for the club I'd accept that but I'm not seeing what. Was he elected by the Well Society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennyc Posted July 25 Report Share Posted July 25 8 hours ago, StirlingDosser said: It is a good point. And the reality of us on this forum will have no experience of boardroom politics or how boardroom affairs are conducted. It may be that this is a learning curve for the society on how to structure and conduct its business. Perhaps some sort of constitution amendment which obliged the WS exec board members to act on the instruction on whatever the consensus is of the WS board. In relation to Dickie, I have asked the question before, why is it he is always on or around the board, like his father before he passed? If they have done something significant for the club I'd accept that but I'm not seeing what. Was he elected by the Well Society? Fair comment and hopefully guidelines that do not have any grey areas. As long as lessons are learned. Clearly any Society Rep on the Exec Board must have some autonomy but there has to be aspects that need referral to the Society Board/Members.. My understanding is that Dickie and Feely were originally placed on the Exec Board purely as representatives of the Society. (Stand to be corrected if not the case). Might have been seen as 'needs must' at the time given the requirement for experience and a link to enable communication between two areas. Were there any other realistic options at the time? From memory, No, but there has been plenty of time since then to make changes had the willing and the abilities been present. In any event the Society reps must surely not be chosen by the Football Club? Conflict of interest and all that. Given that Dickie is no longer on the Society Board I would think his right to be on the Club Board must have gone and he should be replaced by a Society Nominee. But there will be protocols and timings to be followed? Maybe to drive such a change in future, those amendments you mention need to be exact. That said, Dickie may have inherited his father's 10,000 shares so maybe that affords him Board rights outwith the Society connection? Over time I am of the opinion both Feely and Dickie tended to side with the Club Chairman irrespective of the impact on the Society. The transfer of funds and the Wild Sheep proposal being prime examples. Hopefully everything can be properly addressed following the Society AGM. As you mentioned earlier, nobody should be hounded out. But anyone trusted to represent the Society must represent Society values and be able to resist the demands of the Club Chairman when appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 26 Report Share Posted July 26 The news today about Bordeaux and Inverness just reinforces that we made the correct decision and how irresponsible McMahon and his cronies were. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamwell Posted July 27 Report Share Posted July 27 On 7/26/2024 at 7:14 PM, steelboy said: The news today about Bordeaux and Inverness just reinforces that we made the correct decision and how irresponsible McMahon and his cronies were. I’ll bet Inverness fans wish they had fan ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted July 28 Report Share Posted July 28 Not an investment issue but I saw on Twitter today that u14s need to be accompanied by an adult to get in the ground now. That seems a bit needless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellup83 Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 That's McMahon officially resigned. The takeover aside, I thank him for his service to the club and wish him all the best for the future. https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2024/08/01/jim-mcmahon-steps-down-as-chairman/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted August 1 Author Report Share Posted August 1 I've read the official statement. Going by the wording, I assume he'll stay on as a club Director? Maybe semantics but it doesn't say he's resigning from the Executive Board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 43 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said: I've read the official statement. Going by the wording, I assume he'll stay on as a club Director? Maybe semantics but it doesn't say he's resigning from the Executive Board. It's not 100% clear, but I thought " I wish the new Club Chair and Board every success in what will be an exciting next chapter for the Club." suggested he was stepping away from the Board too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 17 minutes ago, weeyin said: It's not 100% clear, but I thought " I wish the new Club Chair and Board every success in what will be an exciting next chapter for the Club." suggested he was stepping away from the Board too. Given his recent performance and the shit show that the Barmack offer turned into he should not have a choice, go and never darken the door again should be the response to him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 I think its always best to remember someone for the good that they did rather than the occasions they let themselves down. So I thank Jim for his service to the club and wish him well for the future. I do wonder though, given his parting words, whether he now regrets the way it ended...... "The overall effect of this operational and managerial professionalism has left the Club in a very stable financial position. The combination of income from future player sales and the additional growth and investment promised in the Well Society’s business plan, means the Club has never been in a better place." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunderwell Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 1 hour ago, Kmcalpin said: I've read the official statement. Going by the wording, I assume he'll stay on as a club Director? Maybe semantics but it doesn't say he's resigning from the Executive Board. 01 Aug 2024 Termination of appointment of James Cairns Mcmahon as a director on 31 July 2024 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villageman Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 All we need now is the 2 Directors on the Board supposedly to enact the interests of the WS to follow.. It is my intention to raise this at the AGM wording along the lines of support for the takeover with or without the WS view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted August 1 Report Share Posted August 1 4 hours ago, Spiderpig said: Given his recent performance and the shit show that the Barmack offer turned into he should not have a choice, go and never darken the door again should be the response to him. He's still a Well fan and did a lot of good for the club so he should always be welcome - just no longer in a professional capacity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted August 1 Author Report Share Posted August 1 We should thank Jim for his years of service and he did some positive things. Its a pity that he made a wrong choice latterly, albeit it was a serious one. There have been some big personalities on the club board in recent years but, they have now moved on. Let's hope the new Board when its appointed, can work on a more democratic and collective basis. 2 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.