Well Society Board Election's 2024

[weeyin]

27 minutes ago, Electric Blues said:

You'll probably remember her father...

Jimmy?

[grizzlyg]

39 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Jimmy?

Thought it was Frankie

[joewarkfanclub]

Is there a zoom link to the agm?

I didnt get an email.

[wellgirl]

19 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Is there a zoom link to the agm?

I didnt get an email.

Yes there is. I'm watching on zoom. I got the email yesterday 

[StAndrew7]

22 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Is there a zoom link to the agm?

I didnt get an email.

I think you had to let them know you were attending online in the questionnaire that came out; did you reply to it if/when you got it?

[joewarkfanclub]

7 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

I think you had to let them know you were attending online in the questionnaire that came out; did you reply to it if/when you got it?

I thought I did.

Maybe not.

Too late now anyway. Will just need to get feedback later.

Thanks.

[Dossertillidie2]

Really impressed by the current board again tonight. Great energy and a clear ambition to serve positively. Some patience, understanding and support and they can deliver on what we all hoped the society could and should be. add in a bit more experience from a business point of view and some ambition and energy with new board members next week and watch it grow.

exciting times ahead I feel after watching that 

[Throughthelaces]

Went along to the AGM tonight missed the financials at the start due to busses being cancelled at the town centre but from what I seen and heard I liked the sound of it. It 

[wellgirl]

Thanks to Iona and Amber for answering my questions. Much appreciated. Sally too. The sound was a bit poor but not their fault - was on my phone and would probably have been better from my laptop. 

[MWellChilders]

I appreciate Sally for working hard to make sure we eventually got to see the meeting. Thank you Sally!

Chris Childers

[Kmcalpin]

8 hours ago, wellgirl said:

The sound was a bit poor but not their fault - was on my phone and would probably have been better from my laptop. 

The sound was poor on my PC but a bit better, although not great, on my phone. I did misss a fair bit because of that.

[wellfan]

I gave up on the zoom feed after a while. Lots of attendees failed to mute themselves, which is pretty stupid and becomes a sensory overload, and the host laptop was also being used to type up the meeting minutes during the live feed, which was also annoying. Perhaps this settled after a while, but I wasn’t prepared to wait out the technical hitches that seem par for the course during these hybrid meetings. I appreciate the summaries from other members. 

[StAndrew7]

It worked pretty well for me on my headset. I did anticipate a few issues relating to the call so gave it a bit longer and it settled a bit. Definitely something to be sorted for future meetings, though.

Favourite bit of the unmuted masses was the guy having a go at the organisers because it wasn't ready and took a while to get started and the main PC was muted and it wasn't professional and that it's not that complicated... When he's unmuted himself and is clearly at work and chatting to a customer about it all. 😂

[Mintymac]

With a few days left before voting closes I’m still in the undecided group for my remaining selections . I’m looking to have as  broad a selection in my voting as possible but there is quite a lot of overlapping between candidates re. what there going to bring to the table . 
The small videos are great but a simple list of what there main priorities and specialisms will be if elected would help . There’s a lot of overlap which I believe makes it tricky for members voting .

On the plus side some outstanding candidates who are enthusiastic and appear to be more than capable of doing a sterling job .
 

 

 

[Gaag]

52 minutes ago, Mintymac said:

With a few days left before voting closes I’m still in the undecided group for my remaining selections . I’m looking to have as  broad a selection in my voting as possible but there is quite a lot of overlapping between candidates re. what there going to bring to the table . 
The small videos are great but a simple list of what there main priorities and specialisms will be if elected would help . There’s a lot of overlap which I believe makes it tricky for members voting .

On the plus side some outstanding candidates who are enthusiastic and appear to be more than capable of doing a sterling job .
 

 

 

Any questions you might have for me - fire away! 😁

[Villageman]

24 minutes ago, Gaag said:

Any questions you might have for me - fire away! 😁

Agree very difficult choice from the list. Some candidates made themselves known at the AGM. Others identified them selves by giving name when asking a question, Obvious to me al least that some of the candidates have already been active as volunteers on the workstreams. 

[ropy]

Hopefully the ‘losers’ don’t walk away and are available for working groups or co-opted positions with a view to being useful candidates for next time. 

[David]

Posted this on P&B, and figured I may as well post it here as well...

I thought I'd share a few reflections on my decision-making process for the Well Society board before I finalise my selections.

The first thing I've noticed is that many people are basing their decisions on what individual candidates contribute in terms of work experience, career history, and so forth.

For me, that isn't a primary concern.

As we've already observed, we can engage those individuals and their skillsets through the workstreams and various other projects. We don't need someone on the board just to make use of their skills or experience.

If we're honest, if it were about experience and contributions, then individuals like Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely should be an automatic choice every single time. Both are immensely experienced with skillsets beneficial to the board.

No, for me there is one criterion that outweighs all others.

When there's a tough decision to be made, such as the Barmack situation, where the executive board might be leaning in a direction that doesn't quite align with fan views or interests, can those on the Society board be trusted to stand firm and vote appropriately? Or will they be influenced by a brief visit to the "big" board's offices for a cup of tea and a biscuit?

I don't want someone on the board because they can enhance marketing, financial stewardship, or anything similar.

I want someone on the board because they truly understand fan ownership.

I'm observing many candidates who are undoubtedly qualified in their day jobs and career experiences, and I've seen many of them actively engaging on the forums and social media over the past few weeks. However, when we were all debating with Erik at 11pm on a Friday night, tirelessly posting counterpoints, researching different business models, meticulously reviewing each line and the phrasing of various plans and heads of terms, and working on documents to chart a new course for the Well Society in the face of allegations of lacking experience or credibility compared to the Netflix chap, many of these individuals were notably absent.

Of course, that could be due to circumstance. Were they too busy? Had family issues? All of which is perfectly understandable. But, maybe it's because they simply did not think Erik's proposal was all that problematic?

Everyone will make their choices based on their own criteria. But for me, it doesn't really boil down to what a candidate has achieved in their career, what experience they have, or what they "bring to the table" in that respect. We have multiple workstreams for that.

I'm more interested in what they contributed during perhaps the most critical non-footballing issue we've faced as a club in recent times. And what their actions would be should a situation like that arise again. 

There is already one individual who was very vocal about how he felt during that time, and for that reason he will never get my vote. I'm sure he may well be a perfectly nice guy, but on this particular issue I don't feel I can ever trust him, no matter what other life skills he may provide. If he's really behind the idea of fan ownership then he can sign up for a workstream. He doesn't need a board vote.

Give me someone who has spent their entire working life on a building site and doesn't even own a shirt and tie, but who will do everything in their power to protect the club from the likes of Erik Barmack over someone like a Douglas Dickie.

Those who were part of that process know who they are, and those particular individuals will have my vote this time around. They stood up and were counted when they could have very easily just sat back and did nothing. 

There's one individual in particular who did more than most, and that particular candidate will be the first name I add to my vote later today. 

[joewarkfanclub]

2 hours ago, David said:

Posted this on P&B, and figured I may as well post it here as well...

I thought I'd share a few reflections on my decision-making process for the Well Society board before I finalise my selections.

The first thing I've noticed is that many people are basing their decisions on what individual candidates contribute in terms of work experience, career history, and so forth.

For me, that isn't a primary concern.

As we've already observed, we can engage those individuals and their skillsets through the workstreams and various other projects. We don't need someone on the board just to make use of their skills or experience.

If we're honest, if it were about experience and contributions, then individuals like Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely should be an automatic choice every single time. Both are immensely experienced with skillsets beneficial to the board.

No, for me there is one criterion that outweighs all others.

When there's a tough decision to be made, such as the Barmack situation, where the executive board might be leaning in a direction that doesn't quite align with fan views or interests, can those on the Society board be trusted to stand firm and vote appropriately? Or will they be influenced by a brief visit to the "big" board's offices for a cup of tea and a biscuit?

I don't want someone on the board because they can enhance marketing, financial stewardship, or anything similar.

I want someone on the board because they truly understand fan ownership.

I'm observing many candidates who are undoubtedly qualified in their day jobs and career experiences, and I've seen many of them actively engaging on the forums and social media over the past few weeks. However, when we were all debating with Erik at 11pm on a Friday night, tirelessly posting counterpoints, researching different business models, meticulously reviewing each line and the phrasing of various plans and heads of terms, and working on documents to chart a new course for the Well Society in the face of allegations of lacking experience or credibility compared to the Netflix chap, many of these individuals were notably absent.

Of course, that could be due to circumstance. Were they too busy? Had family issues? All of which is perfectly understandable. But, maybe it's because they simply did not think Erik's proposal was all that problematic?

Everyone will make their choices based on their own criteria. But for me, it doesn't really boil down to what a candidate has achieved in their career, what experience they have, or what they "bring to the table" in that respect. We have multiple workstreams for that.

I'm more interested in what they contributed during perhaps the most critical non-footballing issue we've faced as a club in recent times. And what their actions would be should a situation like that arise again. 

There is already one individual who was very vocal about how he felt during that time, and for that reason he will never get my vote. I'm sure he may well be a perfectly nice guy, but on this particular issue I don't feel I can ever trust him, no matter what other life skills he may provide. If he's really behind the idea of fan ownership then he can sign up for a workstream. He doesn't need a board vote.

Give me someone who has spent their entire working life on a building site and doesn't even own a shirt and tie, but who will do everything in their power to protect the club from the likes of Erik Barmack over someone like a Douglas Dickie.

Those who were part of that process know who they are, and those particular individuals will have my vote this time around. They stood up and were counted when they could have very easily just sat back and did nothing. 

There's one individual in particular who did more than most, and that particular candidate will be the first name I add to my vote later today. 

I agree with pretty much all of this.

Having already cast my votes, I used a similar logic.

Thankfully, a number of candidates have both the skillsets and are able to evidence their unwavering support for fan ownership. My only regret is that there were not more votes available as there was 1 guy who was deserving of a vote for the work he did getting our story out there and I had to chose between him and another worthy candidate.

Regardless, I think this whole episode proves that there are enough of us who care deeply about the club to make sure fan ownership not only continues, but is likely to thrive.

Many thanks to all those who ran the hard yards to get us here.

[weeyin]

Isn't ignoring a person's qualifications and choosing to vote for someone who is vocal on social media how Trump managed to become President ?

 

 

[joewarkfanclub]

1 hour ago, weeyin said:

Isn't ignoring a person's qualifications and choosing to vote for someone who is vocal on social media how Trump managed to become President ?

 

 

Its not about being vocal on social media. Its having the analytical mind and enthusiasm to identify the flaws in the argument of the thing that threatens the existence of the thing you care about. And then using social media to get that out there......

 

[weeyin]

I was only joking, of course.

However, there are many intelligent and football savvy people I know who would never post on social media, so I would personally never factor that in to a voting decision.

There are lots of business that fail because the founders are passionate, intelligent and have a great product - but lack the skills to execute.

 

[David]

1 hour ago, weeyin said:

I was only joking, of course.

However, there are many intelligent and football savvy people I know who would never post on social media, so I would personally never factor that in to a voting decision.

There are lots of business that fail because the founders are passionate, intelligent and have a great product - but lack the skills to execute.

It's not about who posts on social media, but what they post. If their posts on social media consist of exposing the extreme flaws in the executive boards logic behind supporting the Barmack offer, for example, then I certainly would take that into account when voting.

The thing for me is that the board of the Well Society aren't tasked with executing business ideas. They're essentially guardians of the club. It's the job of the well-paid CEO and the team employed by the club to execute on business ideas.

I want to elect a board that I can trust will not be daft enough to fall for the kind of nonsense that the former chairman and a few of his friends did. I want people who will safeguard fan ownership and ensure that any prospective investor looking for any kind of control is scrutinised in a manner that Barmack clearly wasn't.

If someone can offer social media, marketing, accounting, or any other skill, they can be involved without being part of the board.

[Dossertillidie2]

There is evidence of more than one candidate with clear experience  and knowledge who were very vocal on the offer being nonsense who may or may not have been consulted without public acknowledgment. I  don’t think skills, experience, business acumen is exclusive to love and care for what is right for the club. You can have both

i do agree tho that I’m not sure why there is people running that were very vocal on Barmacks deal being a good one and that gave the impression that the society had no legs but now want to be a part of it . Maybe they have changed their minds and want to get behind it or maybe not. 

[Onthefringes]

48 minutes ago, Dossertillidie2 said:

There is evidence of more than one candidate with clear experience  and knowledge who were very vocal on the offer being nonsense who may or may not have been consulted without public acknowledgment. I  don’t think skills, experience, business acumen is exclusive to love and care for what is right for the club. You can have both

i do agree tho that I’m not sure why there is people running that were very vocal on Barmacks deal being a good one and that gave the impression that the society had no legs but now want to be a part of it . Maybe they have changed their minds and want to get behind it or maybe not. 

Cynical maybe, eyes on the bigger prize? Co-opted onto Executive board.