Bond just about to reach £600k - only launched on about Thursday wasn’t it? Not bad for 3 working days so far.....

And it’s not really hindsight for people to say something they said at the time or would have said had anyone asked them.

Happy birthday Pete, whatever you are doing

And as I believe Trebor has pointed out a few times, seedrs originally was meant to be money for frills and extras so it and the bond wouldn’t have (initially) been in competition.

OI don’t think it’s a case of other way around or not doing seedrs, more a case of offering the options because seedrs alone wasn’t going to get money from the cautious but willing to invest.

It’s astounding really as all other urinal-naming investment funds are flying at the moment.

Don't need hindsight to see Seedrs wasn't going to raise the required funds.

The problem with shares was that pretty much everyone knew it was basically a donation and the likelihood of ever seeing any cash again was minimal. A lot had already made that donation in 2003. Nobody should put money into the bond that they can't afford to lose but there is at least a realistic chance of getting something back. Saying do it the other way round is hindsight and seedrs actually raised way more than I expected but the pessimists amongst us did question the route a long time ago.

Meanwhile, hindsight and crystal ball speculation aside, let’s all try to get as much behind this as we possibly can, no? The sooner we can generate sufficient interest and funds to enable the club to go ahead and get a sensible loan arranged, the quicker the completion of the stadium will be done :)

Bert but that was the same people who thought the hidden three would stick their millions into seedrs. Honestly there seems to have been a painful level of wishful thinking about getting free cash from the world outside the club.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course. Given the option of "Seedrs, free money" or "Bond, interest and pay it all back", I can understand why crowdfunding was thought of as a decent first option.

Bond should have been pre seedrs and alongside. I can fully understand anyone putting in savings not doing so through seedrs. So I don’t see it working as an either/or.

Totally agree it was misconceived, Bert. I just wonder what would have happened if we'd marketed this bond with both barrels like we did with Seedrs, instead of this seemingly semi-official approach.

KD - OK, count me out of the marketing team, but had we all known the gravity of the situation at the time then perhaps the crowdfunding would have been taken more seriously by many than "get your name on a bog" for a few quid.

Happy Birthday to Leamington Pete, one of the early WUP movers and shakers.

Bert - I don't believe you can realistically market a crowdfunding campaign to all and sundry with a negative slant like 'Invest in AFC Wimbledon or they're fucked'. Seems to me it would be doomed to fail as people would wonder if they'd be better off burning £50 notes.

maybe if one of the investors still wants to get involved with the club at a later date ,they can take out a goodwill 2.5 million bond :-)

The early redemption clause is in favour of the DTB, "Your loan is repayable early at any time prior to maturity at the discretion of the Trust". Certainly not water-tight, but one would hope that if it all looks like a bust then they'd repay the investment, or at least give us that option, but it is a question worth asking.

Obviously will wait for PLB to confirm, but OI's analysis suggests that there is no bond condition enabling early redemption in the case that the stadium doesn't get built, as there is in the instance that external investors acquire a controlling stake in the club.

I suppose the worst case scenario would be for the bond to raise around £4m, this gets paid over to the contractors to continue building, then no commercial loan is obtained. We might then end up with a shell of a ground that is unable to engender sufficient finance to service the bond, especially if there's a high level of five year, 4% investors that want their money back in 2025.

If Seedrs had been promoted as we now all realise it should have been, "NPL or bust", then we might not have needed the bond.

Effectively as long as the issuing company exists it has the liability for payment of interest and repayment at the end of the term. If the money isn't there to do that then the company becomes insolvent and the senior debt holders, i.e. the commercial loan company, would get the crumbs. So the answer is that inability to service the bond means the company goes bust.

Goes without saying we should have launched a bond first then, if necessary, gone for a Seedrs-type crowdfunding arrangement offering personalised plaques for others to piss on in the bogs.

Hash, reckon £2.5m

If the stadium isn't built then that implies we haven't managed to get the additional loan. In which case the bond money is sitting unused. In this event one would expect the DTB would trigger the early payback clause. PLB to confirm of course.