Happy Birthday Padds

Thanks Oddsy

Ian - someone with a known public profile and clear source of funds would be a start, as it establishes trust. Look at Reynolds at Wrexham for instance. Wrexham Trust had no Qs about who he was, where he came from or why he was interested, though they may have had other concerns.

Question. Who would people consider a good person to invest in the club? Also, if SSC was "fronted" by an ex Don instead of RB would that sway people?

OI - Man Utd only have Jason Wilcox though. We have the mighty Ryan Bertrand..

Trig - spot on, I think the key question for me (given that all options look bad) is how exactly we are maintaining the promised control over the ground and whether it is included in the 90% of economic value that SSC will own?

They aren't like the Glazers at least because they won't be loading us up with debt. They are a bit like Ratcliffe actually putting their money in to control the football side. The worry is that they might be as incompetent in this area as Ratcliffe with every sporting venture he has touched (football, cycling, sailing, rugby) becoming a disaster.

Trigger - Yes, who owns it, what happens duriung the five years, what can happen after 5 years etc. Versus, whats the position now, what happens now if we went into administration etc. It is hardly in a risk free position now as a subsidiary to AFCW PLC, so even something imperfect is still worth considering. I suspect the new arrangement gives some protections but doesnt remove all the risks.

Happy b/day, Paddington.

As far as I can see so far, it’s the only option apart from administration and it looks better than we could have expected. I suspect that they are in it to increase the capital value then sell up all or in part later to make a profit. Much like the Glaziers at Man United, and Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney at Wrexham (where I think they bought the club for £2m and have just sold 10% of it for more than that). But if we end up with a much bigger stadium, in the Championship and with better players then great. That's better than administration where who knows where we would end up.

That’s why it’s crucial to get clarity on who owns the ground through this deal.

These elements (barony, phd - although possible he has gained that legitimately) could just be to help him gain influence in his other business dealings rather than be procured for the purposes of taking over a League One football club.

Like David Frost, he rose without trace.

He comes across as someone who's in a real hurry to become, and show, he's a pillar of the British establishment. And in slightly cringeworthy ways - buying a Scottish title, acquiring a PhD in a subject that sounds incomprehensible. Maybe these are accoutrements that will help him further his business career in other parts of the world. Maybe they reinforce his idea of who he is and wants to be. But definitely odd. And an odder match for us than for other clubs, perhaps. If neither of my hypotheses were correct, I suspect this deal wouldn't be on the table. Doesn't mean he's a wrong'un, however.

Jason Arday?

That blog post is hardly digging into the detail. I posted about 'UAE money' whilst the presentation was ongoing, it's very easy to find those connections within a few minutes. It's a lot more difficult to prove that the money or influence is coming from a Sheikh or anyone else other than Omar Mir. Using different middle names at different times on companies house (which isnt a crime by the way - the form even allows you to state if its a preferred name, legally changed name etc), using a property management company's address as your correspondence address, these aren't material concerns.

I have been thinking that we are in danger of being taken over by our very own Jason Arday. Nicander's link doesn't reassure.

One question in my mind... the EFL and/or Regulator may not approve SSC very quickly and they could possibly even turn the deal down. Do we have a Plan B to tide us over during the delay and/or if we have to go back to the drawing board?

OI - I mean, I don't want to get back into why DT membership being a free gift with a season ticket was a bad idea, but I do think any member should have a basic responsibility to care about this stuff and try to make informed decisions. But not their fault if they were roped in by default.

I think you're able to change your vote, if you have already voted. Not comfortable reading, I must say, albeit perhaps amber flags rather than red.

nicander - I wouldn't argue with any of that except to say it is human nature to make many decisions on gut feel or the easy choice and that is how this will be made. The average DT member now is not interested in Dr. Mir's complicated background or exactly what we lose. I don't think disaster would be immediate but I do think it would be inevitable. All the ideas that have been put forward as alternatives have such major flaws for me that I would hate to risk them.

As this was the most encouraged package goodness knows how poor all the others were.

I'm conflicted in being in the position of wanting the deal to be right (but feeling more and more that it's not) and the asserted claims that future is bleak in the event of a no vote (whilst not believing the scorched earth scenario being presented)

OI - I think minds can change as facts emerge and questions are raised. I'm not saying they should in this case, I'm just saying it is possible. I think it's the height of arrogance (not you, I hasten to add) when people say "I've made up my mind and nothing anyone can say will change it". Journalists and experts are beginning to dig in the deal - it may or may not change people's views of the substance of it as they do so.

OI, my theory is that you need three weeks to get the "unique voting link" to actually work