Galty, the fur coat (ideas) are fine but we need the knickers!

This time tomorrow we'll have a new signing to discuss.

Spit - you are correct - until 2004 I was supporting Wimbledon FC and have done so since 1985. However - not sure the relevance to my positivity in trying to assist the club either through ideas or investment.

WJ: even if your premise was correct that all or the vast majority of the 5000 individual investors some of whom invested up to £25000 did so not as an "investment" but just "as folk who were willing to put some money into a football club" then there is no reason to presuppose that they wouldn't again - but I accept not all will. Industrial & Provident Societies became governed became Consumer Benefit Societies but those that were already in existence were permitted to carry on using the title. But I'm happy to just call it the "Collective".

Sadly we will almost certainly never know who would have been right about the take up. It is an interesting idea though, if it weren't it wouldn't be worth discussing.

TBF,I don't think Galty was supporting us when we were in the combined counties and people put their cash in.

Indeed, they are now "Registered Societies"

BTW, Industrial & Provident Societies ceased to exist in 2014 [Link] maybe you could some alternative term to define those you appear to dislike so much.

@ JG - your argument collapses when you come to realise that the vast majority of those shareholders aren't investors, they're just folk who were willing to put some money into our football club.

Oi - I guess you are correct in the assumption that the I&Ps will do absolutely everything to avoid fans actually having control of the club. God forbid!! I also accept you premise that the I&PS would be unlikely to be able to find the funds to take up their full entitlement under such a Rights Issue - but that is only because it's members don't really see ownership through such a "Collective" entity. Where we differ (I guess) is that I do think virtually all other shareholders would subscribe for their full entitlement. For an average additional investment of around £500 the 5000+ true fan owners (who purchased shares through Seedrs) would have the Carrot of increasing their shareholding 9 fold and the Stick of not wanting to have their existing shareholding diluted. But of course I accept not all would, in which case those that did would be able to take up the unsubscribed. I would imagine that Nick Robertson and other major individual shareholders would do the same. But look if you think 5000+ individual fans who have contributed to purchase shares is just a "few people" or somehow undemocratic (which you are not saying) and that control by the I&PS and the trampling on all of those fans who invested (not loaned the club money) is perfectly ok (which again you are not saying)- then we really have the worst ownership model immaginable.

F1 is too busy killing itself to worry about this place.

Makes a change from cricket doing it.

F1 killed the guestbook?

Way too late Alan as they lost Adrian Newey, who was far more important to Red Bull than Horner ever was.

So Christian Horner goes from Whining Spice to Sign-on Spice for his entirely properly investigated text messages...

State of Origin III commentary with the great Andrew Moore [Link]

Carlisle announce they will not play in the National League Cup this season [Link]

a4e, northern ladies call it "all fur coat and no knickers"

Galty lives in a place like Alice in Wonderland.

To be fair to (WI)JG, he doesn't have any method of instigating a rights issue and I can't see the DT approving one as they would almost certainly lose control as they couldn't take up rights. So it is largely a hypothetical discussion, where I am happy to accept he would put up money if it were to happen. I ask all these questions as otherwise it looks like a facile argument that here is a solution to all our problems.

OK, so your presumption is that existing shareholders would between them be willing to subscribe for 20 million pounds of shares. I consider that very unlikely, especially as the DT would struggle to take up many shares at all as they don't have enormous reserves and the begging bowl is starting to fail. So there would probably be one of two scenarios. The whole exercise might not bring in more than a few million (I consider that likely, you consider it vanishingly unlikely, both are conjecture). Alternatively a few people would sweep up the shares in the secondary market and effectively become the owners of the club. That wouldn't worry me but would upset a lot of people. It then raises questions about a secondary market for the shares as without one, take up would probably be even lower.

Mouth. Trousers? 🤷🏻‍♂️

OI – I believe I have answered your questions. However, to expand – the Club in the first instance needs to set out a business plan detailing the Capital it believes is required to reach break-even/profitability. That figure will include the Capital required to expand the stadium (if that is desirable), the money required to cover and debt and repay bond holders (should they determine to seek repayment), and the capital required to fund ongoing trading losses until we reach breakeven. Assume that is £20m (but clearly it could be higher or lower). The board then sets out to raise this £20m through a Rights Issue. Currently there are over 5000 shareholders (including the Industrial & Provident Society) owning 32,304,091 shares between them. I’d suggest that the Rights Issue offers all existing shareholders (inc the I&PS) the ability to purchase up to 8 shares for each share currently owned at a price of around 7.7 pence per share. This would create an offering of 258m new shares which at 7.7 pence per share would generate the £20m. This aggressive type of pricing strategy would create both the carrot and stick to encourage existing shareholders to take up their offering. But if there was still insufficient take up then those shareholders who had participated would be entitled to purchase any unsubscribed shares - dictated by the amount of shares taken up in the Rights Issue. I for one would take up my full entitlement under such a Rights Issue and would be a willing buyer in any 2nd round.

Agree with that OI.

or the JG consortium I should say