Unless the ball has bounced back out, I'm not surprised John Martin couldn't stop the goal looking at the relative positions of him and the ball

Spit - any idea how often does Paul Kohler MP pitches up at PL?

As this is wimbledon football related [Link]

*created it not read it

We were promised it in January 2025, so that important votes would be conducted according to a fit-for-purpose process. Ignoring the constitution, the voting process used for selling a huge chunk is a bit pants (can't watch back the SGM then vote, for eg)

Our membership fees have been spent on this new draft - the bloke who’s read it has been paid an unspecified amount to do it. If I were he I’d be protesting about the shoddy execution of it because it would make me look like I lack integrity.

I suspect if you waited for a convenient moment to update the constitution, you'd never get it updated. The year I got voted onto the board we made a start (mainly Hannah Kitchen and Cormac) doing it what I think was "the right way" – engagement and discussions for those who wanted to get involved. But it soon got overtaken by events.

Just spent £35 on a ticket for Northampton, a 12 pm kick off, not sure if that is good value for money.

in short, dont ask people to vote on an important issue before hearing the pros and cons debated on the night. Do allow people to hear the pros and cons debated and then vote (even if they aren't one of the 50 people who can make it to the meeting in person).

I'm a touch upset that we have been asked to vote on an important issue before hearing the SGM debate on it. Again. A members-called SGM pushed for the constitution to be updated *before* any further important votes took place using an out of date, not fit for purpose set of processes. 17 months later, the constitution is being voted upon not only using the old not fit for purpose rules, but at the same time as an important vote on selling a huge chunk of the club. That’s pants. But what’s more specifically shit is that voting is open before people have had a chance to hear the pros and cons debated on the night. That’s totally pants. But to compound that pants into a pants sandwich, if you cannot make it to the SGM at that particular time on that particular day - and don’t want to vote without hearing the pros and cons debated on the night - you are NOT allowed to watch the SGM back and then place your vote. No 24 hours, no one week deadline. Zero. So if you’d like to make an informed vote, but can’t be free at a specific time, you're SOL. Effectively. And that feels, well, pants. The members-called SGM showed this up for the pants process it is. Around 45% voted how the DTB suggested they vote without hearing what they were voting for. Those in the room who had heard what they were voting for voted around 110 for, 3 against. What's that, 98% in favour. That's not a few outliers, that's intentional, informed voting. Even the DTB (to its credit) changed its mind and effectively voted against itself having listened! Being informed makes a HUGE difference. Yet the DTB is effectively pushing for/allowing people to vote uninformed. And on such an important issue, that’s utter utter pants. It has been flagged on Discord and I hope members of the DTB might hurriedly revisit this process or speak freely in protest at it.

You're not alone there, Trig.

I think so, Treebs. Sad how we now say 'they' instead of 'we'.

I’m beyond the point of trusting them to report back accurate voting figures I’m afraid.

Didn't they try 50+1 a while back, but after the great membership giveaway?

I think their hubris is coming back to bite them on the arse. They couldn't see beyond the number of members during the great give-away, and now its going to forever be a slog to meet the t&c's of being a member of a club where there's a non subscribed, bought in, personally invested good will, yes the club was being held in the hands of small percentage of fans, but they at least knew what the gig was and by and large, gave a f*** into making it work.

Time to sell the club, micro-club owners is done.

Exactly, RK. When they expanded the membership I assumed that they were trying to kibosh 50+1 or or anything similar.

I think they believe that controlling us, the members, is as important as saving the club.

I see the big hurdle as getting half of our expanded membership to vote. There must be a level of dis-engagement greater than the original membership base

Is there any document that explains the changes between the draft constitution we could comment on and this 'take it or leave it' version? I'd like to know which suggestions have been taken on board and which have been rejected and why. I'm also sure we are told somewhere but what are the voting requirements on the new constitution?

Presumably, failure to get the 50% in the first vote just makes the 2nd vote null & void

They are trying to do too many things at the same time. If this constitution rehash is so important that should be a vote and meeting itself. To my mind the most important thing is raising cash to keep the club going. The rest is a distraction. If the DTB believe 50.01% to be so vital, that should be all that members are asked to read about and vote on. It will be hard enough to get enough people to vote just for that. I don't think 50.01% is a viable medium term solution but the alternative is administration. The DTB want to avoid that and have no other solutions so it is the only show in town because we can't sell out without going into administration. All the tedious constitution update crap could be done later or just limit the changes to what this vote allows. To try to slip in other changes they want is disingenuous and crafty while the focus is on 50.01%. There is simply too garbage to expect members ti trawl through. What has limiting how long members can speak for got to do with 50.01%? How will that sustain the club financially? It won't. It's just the DTB trying to gag free speech if they get challenged and can’t answer.

Opening voting on the second phase of a restricted action before the result of the first phase of voting is known must be against the ethos of the constitution, if not the word of it, surely? That is pretty eyebrow-raising.

I can understand why they want to get people to vote for both meetings at once as it is easier to motivate people with "one and done" but the second votes are not guaranteed to take place so it is slightly odd.

“Nobody can speak more than once” is absolutely pathetic.