Nick - you're putting a lot of faith in those papers.

Shame on the Newcastle date for me personally as I'll be away. I don't tend to care too much about the League Cup these days but that game does at least have a little bit of excitement about it.

Lurker- obviously you have your view on that issue (unprovable) and I have mine (also unprovable) so there’s probably not much point in debating it between us, all I was saying was that in my personal view that aspect (preventing voting before the meeting) isn’t exactly a top priority. I can make my mind up by reading the papers and I am not going to change that based on what other people may say in the meeting.

The lion & the unicorn opened today at Waterloo station, doing a roaring tradeable a bit cheaper than the next door brewdog.

Should add that OI is correct that the DTB blocked amendments at a previous SGM so when Angus brings them up I suggest the audience tell him to be quiet. Five member resolutions. One the DTB have already been dishonest on. Three others they propose to bring amendments to the meeting. To remind everyone, Michele said that it was legally not permitted to clarify one of Doobs resolutions (the one the DTB all changed their mind on) by a wording change as over 1100 had voted on the wording as it was

Newcastle tues 24th Sept

Love to see a WFC badge sit next to the AFCW one at the front

I’d like us to commission a local community group of artists to install a work entitled ‘Dean Lewington Was Fingered By His Dad’.

The planning permission is for that wall to be completely covered eventually so they might as well let us paint 'MK are cunts' on it

Tso, would it be Angus or Kris you had in mind...

TSO Unfortunately that wall doesn't belong to us, it's part of the flats.

Would love to see us do something similar on that bloody great wall at the stadium. [Link]

won't not don't

Nick we have no idea how many people would vote if they were allowed to view the debate and then vote after. Because that doesn't happen now. So it's a spurious (at least) claim to say people don't.

scotty and yet they're still giving the impression that the FSA did give the advice

Even the correction in the e-mail is wordy bollocks. The DTB continue to deliberately be obstructive and misleading. They said "having taken advice from the FSA on this point, they recommend that member’s resolutions continue to have the higher threshold to pass". As I suggested the other day "May be worth getting the FSA to confirm in writing they are making that recommendation; and if so, their reasoning." That was more polite way of seeing if the FSA were prepared to be associated to that wording and I'm totally unsurprised they weren't.

Agreed, Lurks, this is 2024 not 2002 and.

The number of people who attend DT meetings is a small percentage of the membership and the proportion of those who are going to change their views based on the discussion at the meeting is likely to be even smaller, so agonising about the timing of voting is really one for the hard-core procedure-lovers. I agree though that the DTB shouldn’t be allowed to influence the votes by giving recommendations on how to vote, people should have to think for themselves or not vote at all if they don’t understand the issue or don’t care, not just go along with what the DT tell them to do.

If we can only have one, I would prefer voting afterwards. I'm unconvinced about technical arguments but not a top priority

I just read the correction on FSA advice (via DTB email). We’ve gone from FSA ‘recommend that member’s resolutions continue to have the higher threshold’ to the FSA saying ‘it was not their place to make actual recommendations or speak on motions’. Ridiculous. Apology needed.

Sorry, got cut off - we don't particularly want to ban voting in advance, we want people to be able to catch up on the meeting and debates and then vote if they're not able to attend. But we apparently can't have both and given the choice we think voting should happen after the debates.

people aren't always free to get to AGMs and SGMs so that's not an answer to tell them if they want to discuss and vote on he discussion they need to come along. That's just a DTB favourable answer.

OI/Sav - it's horrendously complicated tbh. There have been lengthy discussions with the Secretary on these points. We are where we are.

DD - the resolution as currently worded does apply to all, but I think this is partly why the Board are proposing amendments.

KD - it isn't lack of trust in members. It's lack of trust in boards to always provide adequate info.