RK no offence taken, trouble is just as we get our brains back the Menopause strikes 🙈🙈

DO, essentially it works if the other clubs you're competing against are also subject to the normal financial disciplines with owners not covering losses.

Maybe he has a very large bet on the Old Firm not winning the league this year! He'd have got excellent odds before his investment in Hearts.

What does Tony Bloom really want from Hearts? He may of course just love the club and be happy to donate 10 million, but we will see. Would we welcome an investment from Bloom?

$6M there are probably people around who could do that. Take John Green, he's chucked in money without being a millstone contributor to the funds, and there have been others too. The problem begins when are asked to make contributions and then have liabilities too, which is whole other matter. Those that will be willing to chuck money in on a regular basis and take on liabilities will also be savvy enough to have an exit strategy, but also have the nous to recognise that unless they get 25% and a.n.other to support them to exceed that 25%, they would need to cover themselves via company law, its a huge ask,

RK, from earlier, as Meadow says, no apologies necessary. Our daughter still thinks she's dimmer than she used to be and her son's seven. Not helpful for her scientific/technical job. I've never really recovered I suspect.

Hearts have shown this season that you can be fan owned and viable at any level of the league you're in.

So we go into administration and get taken over by an individual or group who promise at least League1 or League 2 level funding. Some of our zealots set up a new fan owned club. Which will be your club?

Or maybe Wimbledon Old Centrals

Return to our former name Wimbledon Fc

AFC AFC Wimbledon anyone?

Fan ownership works if you have plenty of fans, a cheap stadium to run (KM) and play NL with occasional forays to L2. Ironically, our achieving the dream of opening NPL ensured that fan ownership is no longer viable. It will end, probably not voluntarily, within the next two to three years.

$6m man - I agree that the whole idea of getting a minority investor who agrees to give us a blank cheque to cover our ongoing losses, without taking a controlling stake, seems totally pie in the sky. I don't think that we would get anyone to agree to making that sort of arrangement legally binding and, if it wasn't legally binding, then in effect they would have taken control on the cheap, by simply being able to threaten to turn off the funding tap, on which we would by that time be dependent, so in effect they would be able to dictate control of the club by threating to stop the funding if they didn't get their way. I am not sure (other than blind ideology) why we don't just face facts and sell out control properly, rather than playing silly games on this.

New Zealand looking good for cricket WC final

For anyone unsure about buying a ticket for Stevenage, I ordered mine online on Sunday afternoon, and it has just arrived, with a first class stamp on the envelope.

You could throw them off the board but you couldn't force them to forfeit their shareholding. Even if you couid, HMRC would have a field day arguing about what the price paid for thr shares was with this sort of arrangement if they used the write off to claim a capital loss. In all likelihood all you could do is throw them off the board and hope they sell them to someone else willing to chuck cash in each year for no tangible return.

Agreed 6mdm - a good chair makes a good meeting. We don’t have a problem with people talking for long periods or trying to dominate meetings. So we don’t need rules which will end up with elderly members being manhandled out of the room. We’ll also then need a rule about no filming of elderly members being manhandled out of the room.

CW - Waggy said he intends to continue playing.

6MDM - I'd want to see the safeguards against them withdrawing funding. I'm fairly sure what I'd want would put people off, e.g. rolling funding with a 3 year exit period.

I'd be more inclined to vote if it were just for 50.01% and a limit what shareholding an individual or group of individuals can hold. I am not interested and informed enough to have an opinion on the constitution and standing orders (whatever they are). When I see things like restricting how long members can speak for to form part of this, my first reaction is why is this even needed? Is it an issue now? It's hard enough to get anybody to turn up, let alone speak. It feels like fixing a problem that doesn't exist and was probably stuck in by this person who did the review and never got challenged. My second reaction is isn't it the role of the Chairman to control a meeting and how long he or she let's somebody speak for?

Voting 50.01%, as it's presented, will not line thr pockets of any investor. In fact, they are expected to continually gift cash every year to fund operating losses and, if nothing changes, in all likelihood they will lose their investment when we sleep walk into administration. My issue is I simply do not believe such an investor exists. Having 25% ownership and a seat on the board is not an adequate return for what is expected of them. If someone was stupid enough to sign up for this, there would be nothing to stop them withholding their ongoing funding and decide just to write their investment off. With a full sale they would have more to gain as they are in control but would also have more to lose. I'm beyond bored by all this now. Will this current vote succeed? Maybe. Will it make much difference in the medium term? No. Therefore, I'm just going to enjoy going to the games at Plough Lane and the away trips as best I can for now. What will happen will happen. I'm past getting worked up about it as it's unhealthy. The whole point of a hobby, which watching football is supposed to be, is it's fun. Club ownership isn't.

Spartan-saw Wagstaff playing for Tonbridge earlier in the season, presumably he can do both jobs

If this vote falls just watch as they blame us for being bad owners, rather than themselves for being shambolic communicators! Somehow they’ve managed to make this vote even more farsical than the first one.

No apologies needed RK. I did have baby brain.

Some of us having been saying this for years ! [Link]